Wealth advisers bank a correction by recording why they changed the agent's suitability draft, meeting note or rebalancing proposal, and deciding whether it reflects a firm-wide rule or one client's circumstances. Firm-wide fixes go to the agent owner as brief, source or bound changes and are re-certified. Client circumstances belong in the client file, never in the agent's brief.
What does the agent do for a wealth adviser?
A wealth management agent drafts meeting notes from adviser recordings or notes, prepares suitability report drafts from the client's fact-find and the firm's product and model portfolio data, and proposes rebalancing trades when a portfolio drifts from its target. It works at depth 1 and 2. Advice, the recommendation itself and any trade placement stay with the adviser and the firm's dealing process.
Advisers correct it in familiar ways. It maps a client's stated attitude to risk to the wrong model portfolio because the firm changed its risk scale. It describes a product's charges from an outdated fact sheet. It proposes selling a holding that the client has asked to keep for personal reasons. It drafts a suitability report that explains the recommendation but not why alternatives were rejected.
The broader role map is in AI agent skills by role.
Firm rule or client circumstance?
This distinction carries most of the teaching. "Model portfolio mapping uses the revised risk scale" is a firm rule and should be banked. "This client wants to keep the family company shares" is a circumstance. It must be recorded in the client file, as a declared fact, so the agent reads it next time. It must not go into the brief, where it would apply to everyone.
The middle case is a method gap revealed by a client: "the agent did not check for retention instructions before proposing sales". That lesson is general and should be banked, without the client's details. Advisers who learn to pull the general lesson out of a specific case bank far more useful changes.
What are the steps?
- Agent, depth 1: reads the fact-find, holdings, product data and model portfolios, each stamped with provenance.
- Agent, depth 2: drafts the note, suitability report or rebalancing proposal, citing sources.
- Person (wealth adviser): corrects and records a reason: risk mapping, stale product data, client instruction missed, reasoning incomplete, unclear brief, or client-specific.
- Person (adviser): updates the client file with any circumstance the agent missed.
- Agent, depth 1: groups reasons fortnightly by reason and product.
- Person (head of advice or compliance): decides what to bank. Changes touching suitability method need compliance sign-off.
- Person (agent owner): makes the change, and Attest replays the agent against past client files before go-live.
| Step | The agent does | Depth | Stays with a person |
|---|---|---|---|
| Read | Fact-find, holdings, product data | 1 | Gathering client information |
| Draft | Notes, suitability, rebalancing | 2 | The advice and any trade |
| Correct | Nothing; reason filed | 1 | Firm-wide or client-specific |
| Bank | Nothing | none | Head of advice, compliance |
| Re-certify | Replayed in Attest | none | Accepting the result |
What must wealth advisers learn?
How product data goes stale. Charges, risk ratings and target markets change. If the agent reads a fact sheet copied into a shared folder rather than the product governance record, it will quote old figures. Many corrections in wealth trace back to this, and the banked fix is to point the agent at the controlled record.
How to correct reasoning, not just wording. A suitability report must explain why the recommendation fits the client and why other options were rejected. If advisers only polish wording, the agent never learns to reason in that shape. The banked change is a brief requirement for the structure of the explanation. The checks behind this are covered in how wealth advisers review an AI agent's decisions.
How provenance applies to client facts. What a client says in a meeting is declared. A valuation from the platform is sealed. When the two disagree, the agent should flag, not choose.
Which controls and evidence matter?
- Client facts in the client file only. Evidence: compliance review of banked changes for client details.
- Product data from product governance. Evidence: provenance and version on each product fact.
- Compliance sign-off for suitability method. Evidence: approver name on each change.
- Re-certification. Evidence: a dated certificate with grounded and escalation gate scores.
What should the firm measure?
Repeat corrections per reason code. Client instructions missed by the agent after the client file was updated, which should be zero. Time from a product change to the agent's sources. Suitability reports corrected for reasoning, as distinct from wording. And file reviews by compliance that find issues in agent-drafted sections.
Where does it usually go wrong?
Client facts get banked. An adviser writes a general lesson with the client's name and situation in it, and confidential information enters the brief.
Product data lives in too many places. Teams keep their own fact sheets; the agent finds the wrong one.
Advisers correct wording and never reasoning, so the agent keeps producing reports that read well but explain too little. HR teams face a similar separation between policy and personal circumstances, as teaching HR advisers to bank corrections explains, and finance teams bank corrections on a close cycle, covered in teaching financial controllers to bank corrections. Firms in other markets add their own conduct rules, as AI agent training for wealth advisers in Japan describes.
Where the Academy fits
Pryme Intelligence Academy's Operator track teaches advisers how a governed agent decides, human review and teaching the agent, with tests set in the learner's own industry and role. A firm can choose to make an adviser's approval rights over agent drafts depend on a current Certified Pryme Operator certificate, which anyone can check at source through VerifyDoc.ai.
Questions people ask
Can the agent give advice directly to clients?
Not in this role. It drafts for an adviser, who gives the advice and takes responsibility for it.
Should the agent place rebalancing trades?
Placing trades moves money and is hard to undo, which is depth 4, earned only through Attest evidence within the role's ceiling. Most firms keep trade instruction with the adviser or dealing team.
What if a client instruction conflicts with the model portfolio?
The agent should flag the conflict and leave the decision to the adviser. Record the instruction in the client file so future drafts respect it.