Industry
Financial services and fintech
Advice and lending carry a compliance burden that a first engagement should not also be absorbing.
Where we stand
We are deliberately cautious here, and this hub says so rather than implying a depth we do not have. Where we are confident is the evidence layer: making the reasoning behind a recommendation a by-product of giving it, rather than a document written from memory days later. That is a records and retrieval problem we have solved elsewhere, and it is the one place in this vertical where the compliance burden works in favour of automation rather than against it. What we will not do is let a system select a product, a price or a date — not as a policy we describe, but as a boundary enforced in the tooling.
Three problems we see repeatedly
Not an exhaustive list of what can go wrong — the three we see over and over, with what they cost and the shape of the fix.
The suitability basis is written up days after the meeting, from notes, by the adviser who gave the advice.
What it costs: File reviews find gaps that then take months-old reconstruction to close, and compliance spends its time on archaeology instead of on early detection.
The fix: Capture the basis as a structured record during the meeting, with every line citing the client record it came from and no unciteable claim able to render.
Client onboarding and KYC repeat the same document chase, tracked in a spreadsheet.
What it costs: Weeks of elapsed time before anything productive happens, and a file whose gaps surface at the worst moment.
The fix: One structured intake with the chase automated and the exceptions escalated, and the audit trail written at the database rather than by application code.
Advisers can technically see more client data than their own book requires.
What it costs: A finding waiting to happen at the next review, and no way to prove the boundary held historically.
The fix: Deny-by-default row-level policies, proved by tests that assert a cross-adviser read returns zero rows, plus append-only audit rows on every privileged action.
Not yet published
We publish a vertical once two client stories stand behind it. This one has fewer, so it is listed honestly rather than dressed up.
We work in financial services & fintech but we will not claim depth here yet. An empty vertical advertising itself as a speciality is worse than an absent one, so this hub stays out of the main navigation until the proof exists.
What we have done so far:
You can still scope work with us. You will be told exactly which parts have precedent behind them and which would be a first.
Scope financial services & fintech work
Tell us what is slow and what it is costing. You get the arc it belongs to, a published price band, and the closest story we have — or a straight answer that we do not have one.
Scope advice-firm work with us