From scattered documents
to reviews you can stand behind.
See how a configured workflow could help a financial team check figures, review client wording and find the current procedure, with sources attached and reviewers deciding.
Three tasksWho decides, at every stepPublished sources linked
Follow three tasks. Each shows a request, an answer that says what it could not check, and who decides.
- 01 / Research & diligenceCheck the figures.
Show what did not match.Compare a presentation with the audited statements and keep every difference and gap visible. - 02 / Compliance preparationCheck the wording.
The reviewer decides.Compare a client draft with your approved wording list and mark what the reviewer should look at. - 03 / Controlled knowledgeFind the answer.
Say when sources disagree.Answer a procedure question from approved documents, and show both sides when two documents disagree.
01 / 03Research & diligence
Check the figures.
Show what did not match.
Workflow scope
The recurring work
Analysts tick each figure in a presentation back to the statements by hand. A difference, or a figure that appears in only one document, is easy to miss.
Inputs to scope
- Investor presentation
- Audited statements
- Your checking template
What we would configure
A read-only workflow that finds each figure in both documents, compares them as written and lists matches, differences and figures found in only one. The numbers come from the documents, not from the model.
Deliverable, decision & acceptance
The deliverable
A figure-by-figure comparison with page references, and a short note on the differences.
Your decision point
The analyst decides whether a difference matters and what to do about it. The assistant restates no figure and corrects neither document.
How we would accept it
Trace every figure to its page, account for each one, and log the reviewer’s corrections with the checking time.
02 / 03Compliance preparation
Check the wording.
The reviewer decides.
Workflow scope
The recurring work
Client emails and updates go to a compliance reviewer, who checks each sentence against the firm’s wording rules, often from a long list.
Inputs to scope
- Client draft
- Approved wording list
- Review checklist
What we would configure
A workflow that compares each sentence with your own wording list, marks phrases that are not on it and says where the list is silent. Your list sets the rules; the assistant applies them as written.
Deliverable, decision & acceptance
The deliverable
The draft with marked phrases, and a short list for the reviewer.
Your decision point
The compliance reviewer decides what can be sent. The assistant approves nothing and changes no wording on its own.
How we would accept it
Check every marked phrase against the list, confirm gaps in the list reached the reviewer, and log the reviewer’s changes.
03 / 03Controlled knowledge
Find the answer.
Say when sources disagree.
Workflow scope
The recurring work
Procedures live in several documents and versions. When two give different limits, staff ask a colleague or guess.
Inputs to scope
- Approved procedures
- Policy library
- Version history
What we would configure
An answer workflow limited to your approved library. It quotes each source with its section and date, and says plainly when documents disagree or when it cannot tell which one applies.
Deliverable, decision & acceptance
The deliverable
An answer with its sources, or a side-by-side of the documents that disagree.
Your decision point
The policy owner confirms which document applies and fixes the inconsistency. The assistant does not choose between your documents.
How we would accept it
Open each quoted section, confirm conflicts reached the policy owner, and check that answers cite only approved documents.
Your existing systems
remain the starting point.
Scope the first workflow around authorized exports from your document management, policy library and case systems. Native connectors, write-back and production integration are separate deliverables to agree, not implied out-of-the-box features.
Sources
for these tasks.
These sources inform the workflow design, responsibilities and acceptance questions. Your own law, procedures and professional rules decide what applies, and each deployment is agreed and checked with your team.
- FINRA: Regulatory Notice 24-09
Regulatory guidance. A reminder that existing rules still apply when firms use generative AI tools.
- FINRA Rule 2210: Communications with the Public
Rule. Content standards for communications with the public, which a firm’s reviewers apply.
- FINRA Rule 3110: Supervision
Rule. Requires a supervisory system with written procedures; final responsibility rests with the firm.
- Federal Reserve and OCC: Supervisory Guidance on Model Risk Management (SR 11-7)
Supervisory guidance. Documentation, validation and independent challenge for the models banks use.
- NIST: AI Risk Management Framework
Voluntary framework. How organizations can govern and manage the risks of AI systems.
Other walkthroughs.
Let’s make AI useful.
For your actual work.
Tell us about a job your team repeats, not your confidential files. We’ll show you how Matrix handles work like it.
Request a demo