THE ANSWER
Check the draft against the actual source, not against how plausible it sounds. Verify amounts, dates, owners and recommendations; preserve contradictions and missing evidence. Record corrections and keep a named person responsible for accepting the output.
Check the consequential details first
This is a suggested review process for an internal draft. Start with claims that could change a downstream decision. Then check completeness and presentation. The appropriate depth of review depends on the task and consequences.
| Check | Question for the reviewer | Example from our fictional record |
|---|---|---|
| Numbers and dates | Does the source support both the value and its date? | £168,000 is from 2024, not the latest reported pension value. |
| Uncertainty | Has the draft chosen one answer where the source conflicts? | £2,200 and £2,600 monthly spending both remain unresolved. |
| Advice and decisions | Was this a question, a discussion or a recorded recommendation? | The client asked about consolidation; no recommendation was made. |
| Actions | Are owner, deadline and status actually recorded? | A follow-up date was not agreed. |
| Evidence and permissions | Is the draft inferring approval or verification from silence? | The source does not record AI-processing permission. |
Treat errors as changes to the process
When you find an invented deadline, correct the draft and ask why it appeared. Was the prompt unclear, did the source mix old and current records, or did the tool ignore a boundary? Record the error category so a repeated problem is visible.
A proposed decision rule for an internal action-list pilot is to hold any output containing unsupported instructions, invented dates or unresolved material contradictions. Your firm should agree its own stop conditions before testing. A prompt change deserves a fresh test; it does not retrospectively make earlier outputs acceptable.
Keep a useful review record
Keep the source version, permitted prompt, saved output, corrections and acceptance decision together in the approved environment. Record the reviewer and date. Do not use the fact that a second AI system agrees as a substitute for accountable review.
Review content and information handling separately
Correct wording does not establish appropriate processing of personal information. A missing permission entry in notes also does not prove that no appropriate arrangement exists elsewhere. Resolve the applicable purpose, lawful basis, transparency, security and retention arrangements with the people responsible in your firm.
The ICO’s AI guidance was marked as under review when checked on 8 September 2026. Consult the current source before relying on regulatory detail.
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.