In regulated categories you cannot simply ship whatever converts best. That constraint is more useful than it sounds.
In most consumer products the test for a screen is whether it converts. In insurance, lending or investment distribution there is a second test: whether what you showed someone would hold up if it were examined a year later. That changes how a product gets built, and teams new to the category usually discover it late.
The practical consequences are unglamorous. What a customer was shown has to be reconstructable, so product data and disclosures need versioning. Comparisons between providers have to be genuinely comparable without flattening the differences that decide a claim. Documents — proposals, policies, renewal notices — stop being attachments and become the primary objects users return for.
There is also a usage pattern peculiar to the category. A protection product is opened perhaps twice a year, so nothing can rely on familiarity. Every screen has to re-explain itself to someone whose last visit was eleven months ago, which rules out most of the density that power-user products get away with.
None of this is a reason to move slowly. It is a reason to decide the constraints first, because retrofitting an audit trail is far more expensive than designing for one.
The compensation is that these constraints are a moat. Anyone can build a quote form. Far fewer will build one that still stands up when someone asks why a particular customer was shown a particular product on a particular day.