If my hunch is correct, then the logic for this is as follows:
- You are assuming deaths occur uniformly throughout the year, so halfway through the year the deaths will occur. Payment happens and, if it's profit/loss for the year, you accumulate that amount to the end of the year (since, as we have always assumed, death occurs halfway through the year).
- We are doing exactly the same thing we have always done. The assumptions are the same except that they want the profit/loss for the year (meaning that when they do their valuation, they want to know their profit/loss for mortality. Valuations usually happen at the end of the year depending on the product but it is assumed for contingencies that valuations happen on a yearly basis unless otherwise stated).
Hence why for the year could be interpreted to mean end of the year.
For during the year, the idea is that profit/loss is arising continuously throughout the year. So, assuming this, profit for the year would, on average, be realised in the middle of the year according to our assumption (because profit or loss is realised on the death, which is assumed to occur uniformly throughout the year resulting in profit/loss occurring, on average, halfway through the year).
That being said, I am going to confirm my suspicion with Logan (my logic in my head seems to make sense but just want to confirm it).