AI meeting notes for IFAs: a source-to-output worked example

What was done on 8 September 2026

The assistant performing this task generated one draft directly from the source and prompt, without external tools, retrieval or a second drafting pass. The draft below was saved before the comparison checklist was written.

A subsequent source comparison was performed by the same assistant. It was not independent or blinded human review.

The source, prompt and initial checklist were prepared by the assistant; the checklist followed generation. There was one source and one saved draft, with no recorded model identifier or configuration. This is an openly documented demonstration, not a comparison of AI products.

• Human baseline
• Elapsed drafting or review time
• Cost
• Suitability
• Privacy compliance
• Accuracy on real client records
• Any client outcome

The complete fictional source

Entirely fictional. No client records or personal data were used.

FICTIONAL TRAINING RECORD — DEMO-IFA-01
Meeting: 8 September 2026. Attendees: Client A and Adviser A. Internal handover notes, not a recommendation.

Client A is 52 and employed. They mentioned stopping work at 63, then said they would like to explore 60 if affordable. No retirement age was agreed.

Workplace pension: £198,000 according to a statement dated 31 August 2026, described in the meeting notes. A value of £168,000 in the old preparation sheet was copied from 2024. Current charges and investment holdings were not available at this meeting. Client asked whether consolidating an old pension might simplify administration. No transfer or investment recommendation was made.

Cash savings: client estimates £18,500; supporting statement not supplied. Mortgage balance: client estimates £94,000. Mortgage statement still required. These are client estimates, not verified balances.

Monthly essential spending appears as £2,200 in the opening notes and £2,600 in the budget discussion. Both are labelled current. Nobody clarified the difference. Annual travel spending of £3,000 was mentioned separately, with no decision about whether it is included in either monthly figure.

Client wants to protect time with family and avoid a long commute. Risk questionnaire was not updated. Capacity for loss was not discussed in these notes. Recording permission and permission to process the notes with an AI tool are not recorded here; do not assume either.

Actions dictated at the end: Adviser A to request pension charges and current holdings by 11 September 2026. Client A to send the mortgage statement by 15 September 2026. Client A to clarify essential spending and whether the travel budget is additional; no deadline agreed. Administrator to arrange a follow-up; date not agreed. Client prefers a telephone follow-up rather than video.

No provider name, policy number, email address, tax calculation or recommendation is recorded.

The exact drafting prompt

The instructions ask for an internal handover and explicitly require the assistant to preserve uncertainty.

Using only the fictional record supplied, write an internal adviser handover of no more than 250 words. Use the headings Recorded facts, Unresolved questions, and Actions. Preserve the distinction between reported and verified information. Identify conflicting figures without choosing one. Do not infer suitability, permission, provider details, deadlines or recommendations. Include action owners and recorded deadlines. If something necessary is not recorded, say so. This is a draft for source checking, not client-facing advice.

The saved AI draft

The following output was saved before the checklist was written. It has not been silently corrected for this publication.

Recorded facts
Client A is 52 and employed. They want more family time and less commuting. Retirement at 60 and 63 was discussed; neither was agreed.
The notes report a workplace pension of £198,000 from a statement dated 31 August 2026. The £168,000 preparation figure is from 2024. This draft does not verify the statement. Cash of £18,500 and a mortgage of £94,000 are client estimates; supporting statements have not been supplied.
Consolidation was raised as a question. No transfer or investment recommendation was made.

Unresolved questions
Essential spending is recorded as both £2,200 and £2,600 monthly. Neither figure is confirmed. Whether the £3,000 annual travel budget is additional is unclear.
Current pension charges and holdings are unavailable. The risk questionnaire was not updated; capacity for loss is not recorded. Recording and AI-processing permissions are not recorded and must not be assumed.

Actions
Adviser A: request current pension charges and holdings by 11 September 2026.
Client A: send the mortgage statement by 15 September 2026; clarify essential spending and treatment of travel, with no deadline agreed for that clarification.
Administrator: arrange a follow-up; no date agreed. Client A prefers telephone to video.

What the source comparison found

The saved draft explicitly flags the conflicting spending figures and the unrecorded permission entries. The listed source checks were preserved in this one draft. The reviewer did not identify an unsupported financial recommendation in it. This is coverage against the listed checks, not an accuracy percentage or approval for client use.

The next section explains omissions identified by the second review. The 14 checks alone do not establish a fully faithful summary.

What a second AI review found missing

A separate AI reviewer compared the saved draft with the source and the original checklist. It found all 14 listed checks represented, but also identified details that the checklist did not adequately test. This was not a blinded or human review.

• The draft omits that exploring retirement at 60 was conditional on affordability, and that 63 was mentioned first.
• The consolidation question concerned an old pension and simplifying administration; those details are lost.
• “Protect time with family” becomes “more family time”, a small shift beyond what the source says.

Limits of this example

The table is a coverage check selected after generation. It is not an accuracy score. A second AI reviewer also compared the saved record; neither review was human validation.

• One short synthetic record and a prompt designed to preserve uncertainty.
• The source, draft and review were produced by the same assistant; the check list was written after generation.
• No independent human review, repeated runs, competing tools, audio transcription, real client data or connected systems.
• No measured time saving, cost saving or client outcome.
• A missing permission entry in the notes does not establish whether permission exists elsewhere; no lawful-basis decision was evaluated.
• An internal handover summary cannot establish suitability or replace source verification.