Most firms know exactly what good looks like — a reviewed file, a coached adviser, a thoughtful annual review, paperwork that lands while the prospect is still warm. What they lack is the hours to do it on every case.
No compliance manager chooses to review 10% of files. It's what half a day per review forces on you. The same logic runs through the whole firm: meetings recorded but never analysed, competency assessed from memory, cash advice skipped because the evidence trail takes too long. These aren't standards failures — they're arithmetic. When a review takes minutes instead of half a day, coverage stops being a budget decision.
Two reviewers rarely score the same file the same way. Two assessors mark the same adviser differently. Software applies one standard, every time, and keeps a record of which version of that standard applied. For a regulator — or a professional indemnity insurer — that's a fundamentally stronger position than "our consultant had a look."
None of these apps gives advice. They do the mechanical work — reading, counting, comparing, drafting — and hand the result to a human with the judgement-based parts clearly flagged. Strata marks the sections only an adviser can complete. Sentinel quotes its evidence so a compliance manager can check it. The machine does the arithmetic; the professional signs the advice.
"The AI said so" is not a compliance position. That's why every finding names the rule it engages and quotes the passage that triggered it, why scoring rulesets are versioned and dated, and why Sterling's universe is restricted to FSCS-protected deposit-takers with rates verified at the moment of recommendation. If you can't defend it to the FCA, it isn't a feature.
© 2026 ifatools.ai · Built by Cervello Financial Planning · Prices exclude VAT