THE ANSWER
Give staff the source record and a flawed draft, ask them to identify unsupported claims and rewrite each one using the evidence. This exercise contains six deliberately introduced errors, an answer key and a discussion rubric. It is a training resource, not a competence certificate.
How to run the exercise
Use the fictional record in the linked meeting-note example. Ask participants to work through the draft before reading the answer key. No client documents or tool subscription are needed.
- Read the fictional source before the flawed summary. Underline claims that are contradicted, unresolved or unsupported by the source.
- For each issue, quote the relevant source text and rewrite the claim without adding a fact.
- List the unresolved matters that need clarification and assign only the owners or deadlines actually recorded.
- Compare your findings with the answer key. Treat the example as an exercise in record checking, not a suitability assessment.
The deliberately flawed summary
Deliberately flawed training example — fabricated errors, not the recorded AI output. These errors were written for this exercise. They are not the saved output of the worked example.
Client A will retire at 60. Their current workplace pension is £168,000. Essential spending is £2,200 a month, including the £3,000 annual travel budget. Client A gave permission to process the notes using AI. Adviser A recommended pension consolidation. Adviser A will request pension charges and holdings by 11 September 2026, and Client A will send the mortgage statement by 15 September 2026.
Answer key: six introduced errors
Equivalent source-faithful corrections are acceptable. The two dated actions at the end of the flawed summary are supported; they are not errors.
| Issue | Correction |
|---|---|
| An agreed retirement age was invented. | Retirement at 60 and 63 was discussed; no age was agreed. |
| An old pension value was presented as current. | The notes report £198,000 from a statement dated 31 August 2026; £168,000 came from 2024 preparation material. |
| One spending figure was selected despite a contradiction. | Essential spending is recorded as both £2,200 and £2,600 monthly and needs clarification. |
| The treatment of travel spending was invented. | It is not recorded whether £3,000 annual travel spending is included in or additional to monthly spending. |
| AI-processing permission was invented. | Permission to process the notes with an AI tool is not recorded here; do not assume it. |
| A client question was converted into an adviser recommendation. | The client asked about consolidation; no transfer or investment recommendation was made. |
Use the result to plan learning
For training discussion, award one point for identifying each of the six listed errors and one for each source-faithful correction, up to 12. Accept equivalent accurate wording. The two recorded action deadlines are supported and should not be marked as errors. Other omissions can be discussed separately; this rubric is not a competence certification.
Discuss omissions separately from invented claims. The flawed summary also leaves out useful context. Ask what the output is meant to achieve before deciding which omissions matter.
A useful follow-up is to ask each participant to prepare a brief and an internal handover from the same source, then exchange drafts for review. Do not record this exercise as proof of competence to use AI on live advice cases.
APPLY THIS TO YOUR FIRM
Want help turning this into a practical AI workflow?
Work with Steven Calvert on an assessment, a defined pilot or staff training for your IFA business.
Explore AI implementation ↗Prepared with AI assistance. Our examples identify their sources, method and limitations. This article provides business guidance, not personal financial advice, legal advice or a product endorsement. Editorial approach and commercial interests.