How to Choose an AI File Note and Advice Document Platform

AI is showing up everywhere in advice. Most of the noise is about meeting notes and transcription. Helpful, sure, but that is not the core of your business.

The real goal is higher quality advice delivered faster, with fewer errors and less admin drag on the team. Meetings are just one input. What matters is what your practice produces afterwards, including compliant AI file notes and advice documents, and how consistently you can do it across advisers and paraplanners.

This guide gives you a clear way to assess AI platforms in the Australian advice context, without getting pulled into feature bingo.

Start with the actual job to be done

A client interaction creates a chain of work. If AI only helps with the first link, you still carry the heavy part.

What your team truly needs to produce is:

1. Advice artefacts that stand up to scrutiny
   File notes, Records of Advice, advice rationale, audit trail.
2. Clear internal handoffs
   Paraplanner instructions, task lists, next steps that do not need translating.
3. Client ready advice documents
   Proposals, review packs, SOAs, plus the final Word versions you actually send.
4. Practice level consistency and insight
   Standardised outputs across advisers, and the ability to spot issues or opportunities across the client base.

That is the work AI should be taking a meaningful bite out of.

The 6 point evaluation checklist

1. Does it produce consistent, trustworthy advice outputs across the whole team?

In our experience, this is where the difference really shows. It is one thing to save an adviser 20 minutes. It is another to lift quality and consistency across a practice.

Look for a platform that:

• drafts file notes and advice documents in a repeatable house style
• supports advanced templating so outputs are consistent across advisers
• can show where key statements came from through source citation

Source cited drafting is not a gimmick. It reduces rework and makes review safer because you are not guessing whether the AI invented something.

This will not matter equally for every firm, but for most, standardisation is the difference between “nice tool” and “practice upgrade”.

2. Is meeting recording just a feature, not the product?

Recording and transcription should be the input layer, not the end deliverable.

You want AI that turns raw conversation into:

• compliant file notes
• paraplanner ready requests
• advice ready structure

If the output is still a generic summary you need to re write, you have not removed real load.

3. Can it generate final, polished Word documents?

This sounds small until you live it. Formatting and rebuilding documents is a time sink that never gets counted properly.

Check whether it can produce:

• clean Word docs and PDFs aligned to your templates
• finished artefacts you can send or file without layout mess
• minimal copy paste between systems

If your paraplanner still has to spend an hour rebuilding an SOA shell, your “AI savings” evaporate.

4. Does it help with advice strategy, not just recall?

Summarising a meeting is not the same as supporting advice development. Some platforms go further.

They can help you:

• pull out goals, constraints, and trade offs clearly
• highlight gaps or inconsistencies in the discussion
• structure advice rationale so it is easier to review

It is not about letting AI “decide the advice”. It is about giving you a sharper first draft that you can stand behind.

5. Is it built for practice workflows, not just individual advisers?

Advice is a team sport. If AI only supports the adviser, the bottleneck just moves to paraplanners or client service.

Evaluate whether it supports:

• different roles and permissions
• adviser to paraplanner handoff formats
• workflow tracking and outstanding actions
• client service follow ups

The best platforms make the whole chain faster, not just the first step.

6. Australia specific data residency and processing, with clear answers

This matters because your obligations around client information are real, and regulators do not care that a vendor’s marketing page said “secure”.

Practically, you need to know:

• where data is stored
• where it is processed
• whether any processing happens via providers outside your country
• whether your data is used to train models

If a platform cannot give you a straight answer, that is risk you are wearing, not them.

Red flags

Keep it simple. If you see these, move on:

• It stops at transcription and summaries, with no real document engine.
• You cannot export complete Word artefacts aligned to your template branding.
• It is designed for a solo adviser with no paraplanner or client service workflow.
• Data residency or processing is vague, or relies on offshore services.

The takeaway

AI meeting notes are useful, but they are not the prize.

The right platform for a advice firm will:

• lift advice quality and consistency across the practice
• draft compliant file notes and advice documents in your style
• generate final Word outputs without reformatting pain
• support adviser, paraplanner, and client service workflows
• help sharpen strategy and rationale, not just summarise
• keep data stored and processed in your country with clear governance

That is what turns AI from a feature into a real capacity and quality lever.