Wealth-Advisory Research & Meeting-Prep AI Copilot

What this agent does

Assembles what the adviser needs to advise

Take the question as the adviser put it — a holding, a fund, a sector or something a client said.

Read the client's position from the systems of record — holdings, share class, cost basis and mandate.

Reason

Retrieve the firm's approved research and the product documentation in force, with its date and version.

Set the holding against the portfolio the client actually has — weight, overlap and what the mandate allows.

Draft the note with the balance the rules ask for — the case against, the risks, the charges, the conflicts.

Decide

Check each figure against its source, and flag prices, holdings and documents that have gone stale.

Check the requester's entitlement before research enters the pack, and hold advice-class questions for the adviser.

Out

Hand the adviser a pack and a draft — every claim carrying its source, its date and its version.

Retain what was read, what was drafted, what the adviser changed and who approved what a client saw.

→ Product statement

The agent researches, assembles and drafts. The recommendation, the suitability assessment and the approval of anything a client sees stay with a licensed adviser and your compliance function.

Example workflow

One adviser request, end to end

AgentHuman

1Request receivedA question on a holding, a fund, a sector or a market move — or a review meeting falling due

2Position assembledHoldings, share class, cost basis, mandate and restrictions, taken from the systems of record

3Research retrievedThe firm's approved research, the house view and the product documentation in force, each with its date

4Balance and entitlement checkedRisk warnings, charges, past-performance wording, conflicts to disclose, and what this requester may see

No human action required

Stages 1 to 4 run before the adviser opens the pack — the position, the research and the balance checks are done first. Nothing in that stretch reaches a client or names a recommendation.

5DecisionSplits on how current the sources are and whether advice was asked for

Sources current, question in scope

Reaches the adviser as a draft pack.

Source moved, or advice asked for

Held for the adviser before anything is drafted.

Licensed adviser

Reads the pack, the sources and their dates, decides what the client is told, and owns the recommendation and the suitability assessment.

Approve · Amend · Send back

Adviser approved — handed back▼

6Adviser decides, agent filesOnly what the adviser approved — the pack, the note and any client material — written where access and policy allow

7Outcome evaluatedFigures traced to source, stale documents caught, required disclosures present, and adviser amendments

Corrections

A figure the adviser had to re-check against its source counts as a failure.

What should not run autonomously

Human approval stays in control

Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items

Making a recommendation to a client.

Assessing whether a product suits a client.

Approving a financial promotion.

Sending anything to a client.

Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided

✓Assemble the client's position, share class and mandate from the record.

✓Retrieve the approved research in force, with its date.

✓Draft the note against your own risk-warning, charges and conflicts rules.

✓Flag a stale price or a superseded document.

Write actions run only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation. Anything sent to a client is not one.

Placing, amending or cancelling an order.

Changing a mandate, model or risk profile.

Issuing research outside the firm.

Changing the approved source list or entitlements.

Example output

One adviser request, annotated

Everything the agent proposes is attached to the position and the document it came from.

Research pack · single requestIllustrative example

Adviser asks

Client holds

Review due

Pack assembled

Confidence

Suitability

Current view on a fund

Two share classes

In 4 days

House view, unchanged

87%

For the adviser to assess

As receivedThe question as the adviser put it and the position read from your systems — nothing on this side is inferred.

Evidence used Approved fund research Product document, dated Custodian positions

Why both classes are shownSame fund, different charges — the pack marks what does not carry across.

ActionApproveAmendSend back

What the score decidesHow much the adviser re-checks before using it — never whether the fund suits this client.

Value

Where AI adds value

The same four claims, placed at the point in the workflow where each one applies.

Where the value landsValue 01 – 04

Every adviser requestReviews, client questions and market moves

03Sources & dates

Work from the approved source

Read the firm's current research and the product documentation in force for the share class the client actually holds — not from what the model remembers.

01Approved path

Start from a pack, not a blank page

The position, the house view and the product documents arrive together and dated, so the adviser is not chasing a fact sheet the day before the meeting.

02Human review

Hold the draft when a source moves

A price, a holding or a document that has been superseded stops the draft, and the adviser is told which one moved and when.

04Build an evidence trail

Retain the request, the sources read with their dates, the draft, the adviser's amendments and who approved what a client saw — on both paths.

Integrations

Typical integrations

Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.

Research & house viewApproved research notes · house view
Analyst models · research distribution

Product documentationProspectus and fact sheets · KIDs
Fund data feeds · share-class terms

Portfolio & custodyPortfolio management · custodian positions
Pricing and valuation feeds

Agent

Wealth-advisory research

Reads approved research
Assembles the position
Drafts for review

Approvals & entitlementsApproval workflow · restricted lists
Wall-crossing records · entitlements

Observability & evaluationOpenTelemetry · Langfuse
Supported monitoring/evaluation sources

Integration availability depends on the client's existing systems and API access.

Agent controls

Six layers between the model and the meeting

Each control wraps the one inside it. A pack clears every layer before an adviser reads it, and approving anything a client sees sits outside all six.

L6 · Outermost — last line of defenceInward → L1 · closest to the model

L6Rollback / safe modeReturn advisers to unaided research if evaluations or production signals degrade.Roll back

L5TraceabilityRecord the sources read, the draft, the amendments and the approval.Record

L4Adviser gateNo recommendation, suitability view or client item without a licensed adviser.Gate

L3Communication checksRisk warnings, charges and conflicts are checked against your rules.Check

L2Staleness checksPrices and documents are checked against your staleness window.Flag

L1Source and entitlementClaims carry their source, and entitlement is checked first.Bind

Model corePack proposed — the position, the sources read with their dates, the draft note and the confidence

L1 – L2Decide whether a source may be used at all

L3Decides what a client may be shown

L4 – L5Keep the advice with a licensed person, on the record

L6Pulls automation back when signals degrade

How Nestack evaluates it

Evaluate the whole pack — not only whether the facts were right.

Coverage runs the whole depth of the workflow, and every layer is cut by slice.

Surface — the pack the adviser opens

Depth of coverage ▼

E1Source evaluationWas every figure taken from the approved document in force?

E2Currency evaluationWere stale prices, holdings and superseded documents caught?

E3Communication evaluationDid the draft carry the risk warnings, charges and conflicts required?

E4Boundary calibrationWere advice and suitability questions actually held for the adviser?

E5Slice evaluationHow does performance change across specific request cohorts?

E6Business outcomeHow much of each pack did the adviser re-source or rewrite?

Floor — material an adviser could put in front of a client

Failure modes

Where each failure originates in the agent

Seven failure modes plotted against the five stages of the agent lifecycle.

Agent lifecycleDirection of processing →

01 · Retrieval2 modes

WA-01

Superseded document used

A fact sheet replaced after a term change is read as current.

WA-02

Restricted source crossed

Research this requester is not cleared for is pulled into the pack.

Stage gathersApproved research, product documents and entitlements

02 · Position2 modes

WA-03

Stale price or holding

The position is read before the feed repriced, so weights are wrong.

WA-04

Held-away assets left out

What is custodied elsewhere is missing, so the adviser rebuilds it.

Stage assemblesThe client's holdings, share classes and prices

03 · Drafting1 mode

WA-05

Past performance shown bare

A return figure appears without its period, its basis or the warning.

Stage draftsThe note, its warnings, charges and disclosures

04 · Handover1 mode

WA-06

Note reads as a recommendation

The draft tells the client what to do, not what is known.

Stage presentsThe pack an adviser reads, with nothing sent

05 · Change / Version1 mode

WA-07

Research update lands late

A house-view change arrives after the pack was already built.

Stage tracksResearch updates, document versions and prompts

Sev-1 · a client is told the wrong thing Sev-2 · the adviser uses a wrong figure Sev-3 · the pack is thin and rebuilt

See the complete Banking failure-mode catalogue →

Affected slices

The fund that changed while nobody re-read it

A core model holding is close to a lookup — nothing moved and everybody quotes the same price. Failures land where terms changed mid-year, and where the assets sit elsewhere. Nestack reports by slice, not only in total.

Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example

Slice	Failure rate	Lift	Status
Recently restructured funds	4.0%	2.6×	Review
Structured and illiquid products	3.3%	2.1×	Review
Held-away and legacy assets	2.9%	1.9×	Watch
Core model-portfolio holdings	1.4%	0.9×	Normal

Bar: mis-sourced-pack lift vs. model-holding baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold 2 of 4 slices over threshold

Evidence-linked improvement

A superseded document does not announce itself

It surfaces when an adviser re-checks a figure the pack asserted, or when the fund house restates a change nobody upstream had picked up.

Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn

01Detect

Re-sourced figures, adviser rewrites or late document versions rise in one request cohort.

02Diagnose

Located in the document retrieved, its version, the position feed or the wording of the draft.

03Improve

The source list, the staleness rule or the drafting template is re-approved by compliance and version-linked.

04Verify

Packs already used in meetings are rebuilt against the corrected sources.

05Learn

The document that had moved is kept beside the pack it broke, and the staleness window is narrowed.

Learn → DetectThe return edge. Product terms keep moving after a pack is written, so each cycle re-reads packs the last one had already signed off.

Typical build scope

Twelve workstreams across six weeks

The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, approved sources, positions and drafting, evaluation, the adviser workbench, then production validation and handover.

Workstream Week 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6

01Advice-boundary and request-type discovery.

02Research and document-source assessment.

03Approved source list and version tagging.

04Portfolio and custody position assembly.

05Staleness rules for prices and documents.

06Entitlement rules and information-barrier filters.

07Drafting templates with required disclosures.

08Adviser gate and promotion-approval routing.

09Slice evaluation suite and regression case packs.

10Adviser workbench and CRM integration.

11Observability and trace instrumentation.

12Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover.

12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallel Final scope and sequence confirmed in discovery

Engagement tiers

What each tier includes

Rows are the capabilities named in each tier's scope. Higher tiers include everything below them.

Capability✓ in scope · — not at this tier PilotOne desk, one product set ProductionProduction advisory integration AdvancedMulti-entity / cross-border

Introduced at Pilot

Research pack from approved sources✓✓✓

Client position, share class and mandate✓✓✓

Staleness and entitlement checks on sources✓✓✓

Adviser gate before anything reaches a client✓✓✓

Audit trail of sources, drafts and approvals✓✓✓

Baseline evaluation✓✓✓

Introduced at Production

Additional product sets and research sources—✓✓

Adviser workbench and CRM integration—✓✓

Observability and evaluation—✓✓

Introduced at Advanced

Multi-entity and cross-border product sets——✓

High volume and additional languages——✓

Build price From $5,000 From $8,000 Custom quote

Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on the desks and product sets in scope, research and document sources, portfolio and custody integrations, request volume, approval controls and deployment requirements.

Separate from buildBuild pricing is separate from recurring Agent Care, which covers managed monitoring, evaluations, incidents and verified improvements after launch.

What we need from you

What you bring, and what we build with it

Each input maps to a piece of build scope and a week in the delivery timeline.

You bringWe build with it

01The requests in scope, and who is licensed to advise on them → Advice-boundary and request-type discoveryWeek 1

02Your approved research and the product documents you rely on → Approved source list and version taggingWeek 2

03Access to portfolio, custody and pricing systems → Portfolio and custody position assemblyWeek 2

04How old a price or a document may be before you stop using it → Staleness rules for prices and documentsWeek 3

05Your restricted lists, and who may see which research → Entitlement and information-barrier filtersWeek 3

06The disclosures your client material has to carry → Drafting templates and promotion-approval routingWeek 4

07Named advisers and a compliance reviewer → Adviser gate, then supervised packs in live meetingsWeeks 5–6

Nothing else is required Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.

Delivery timeline

Four phases across six weeks

Phases are drawn over the weeks they actually occupy. Week 5 runs on meetings already held, so no client reads agent-drafted material to prove the agent.

Phase W1W2W3W4W5W6

Discovery W1

Build W2 – W3

Evaluate W4 – W5

Pilot & Launch W5 – W6

Week focus W1The requests in scope, the advice boundary and who signs what W2Approved source access, version tagging and the position feed W3Staleness rules, entitlement filters and drafting templates W4Promotion-approval routing, the evaluation suite and the slices W5Packs rebuilt for meetings already held, nothing sent to a client W6Advisers work live packs under review, then handover

Reading the bandEntitlement filters and staleness rules finish in week 3 and are tested in week 4. Nothing in week 5 runs on a source those checks have not already covered.

At the end of W6A pack has been built, checked and used in a live meeting under supervision for each request type in scope, and every figure in it has been traced back to the document it came from, then Agent Care takes over monitoring.

DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.

Next step · Banking AI agent

Build a research copilot around the sources your advisers already trust.

Show us the questions your advisers ask, the research and product documents you already approve, and who signs what before it reaches a client. We'll rebuild a set of packs your advisers wrote by hand and show you where each figure came from — which sources had already been superseded, and which lines would have needed a compliance approval before a client saw them.

Discuss this agent →

Nestack Agents · Wealth-advisory researchAGT-BK-06 · Agent Care available after launch