Drafting suitability letters in minutes, not hours

A wealth management firm could use a private AI assistant, grounded on its own approved guidance, to draft first-pass suitability letters for adviser review.

Independent wealth management firm A couple of months to value

The challenge

Suitability letters are a major source of admin drag - long, formulaic, but high-stakes. Advisers can spend hours per client on documentation that pulls them away from client conversations.

The approach

1Build a private AI assistant grounded only on firm-approved templates and guidance.
2Capture key client facts and recommendations in a structured intake form.
3Have the AI generate a first-pass suitability letter for adviser review.
4Maintain a clear audit log of edits between draft and final.

Potential outcome

Drafting time per letter reduced from hours to minutes.
More consistent tone and structure across the firm.
Advisers freed up to spend more time with clients.

Tools used

Private LLM with retrieval Internal guidance library Document audit log

How a sensible pilot could look

The fastest way to test a use case like this is a tightly scoped 30-day pilot rather than an open-ended rollout. The shape we recommend in almost every UK SMB is the same: one workflow, one owner, one success metric, one decision date. The point is to learn quickly and cheaply, not to transform the business in month one.

In week one, map the current workflow end to end and time it. This baseline is non-negotiable - without it, you can't tell whether the AI made things better, worse, or about the same. In week two, set up the tool and train two or three people deeply rather than rolling it out widely. In week three, run the new workflow alongside the old one and capture friction in writing. In week four, review the data, decide go or no-go, and write up what you learned.

Even a no-go is a successful pilot if you understand why. The worst outcome is a 'maybe' that drags on for another month and quietly absorbs the budget.

What to watch out for

Picking too broad a workflow. Narrow it until it almost feels too small - you can always widen later.
Skipping the baseline. If you don't know what 'before' looked like, you'll argue about whether 'after' is better.
Removing the human review too early. Almost every successful AI rollout in an SMB keeps a person on the final decision for far longer than the vendor suggests.
Letting the success metric become a feeling. 'The team likes it' is not a metric. Time saved, error rate, response time, conversion - pick something measurable.
Pasting client or customer data into a public tool. Use the approved one, or don't paste it at all.

Questions worth asking before you start

Who owns this? Not a steering group - one named person whose job it is to make this work, with the authority to change the workflow rather than just observe it.
What does success look like in numbers? Pick one metric, write it down on day one, and don't change it mid-pilot.
What data is the AI allowed to see? Be explicit about what's in scope, what's out of scope, and where outputs are stored. Document it before the pilot starts, not after.
What happens at day 30? Diary the go / no-go meeting now. Invite the people who can actually decide, not just the people who'll be in the room anyway.

Free assessment

Not sure if this is the right use case for you?

Take our 3-minute AI Opportunities assessment and get a tailored shortlist of the highest-impact use cases for your financial services & insurance business - based on how you actually work today.

Start the assessment About 3 minutes - no email required

More Financial services & insurance use cases

Financial services & insurance