Discovery With Advisors and Compliance
Balance the needs of advisors and compliance reviewers during Aster Wealth’s discovery process by ensuring quick access to research while maintaining source eligibility, accuracy, and regulatory compliance. Define clear criteria for evaluating answer correctness, source eligibility, and claim support to address disagreements during sample reviews. Identify eligible research sources, verify advisor access entitlements, and establish procedures for resolving conflicting information across reports. Facilitate effective communication between advisors and compliance teams to clarify expectations, resolve disputes, and align decisions with regulatory requirements. Document evaluation criteria, source restrictions, decisions, and supporting evidence to ensure transparency and accountability. Use these findings to guide the development of a reliable retrieval and evaluation system that supports research efficiency while maintaining appropriate compliance controls.
“The fee is 4%,” says a sample answer, linked to an approved research report. The advisor likes it: a number in seconds, with a source attached. The compliance reviewer fails it: the report says maximum, and another applicable report gives a different maximum. Discovery at Aster is about turning that kind of disagreement into decisions about sources, permissions, and what counts as correct, before anyone builds a retrieval system.
What does each group want?
Aster’s advisors want to spend less time finding and comparing research. Compliance wants to know three things about every answer: the advisor was allowed to see the material, the material applied to the question, and every important claim can be checked against a passage. Both goals are legitimate, and they pull in different directions.
The fastest way to surface the tension is to give both groups the same sanitized inquiries and ask them to judge the same sample answers. Disagreements that stay abstract in a requirements meeting become concrete when two people grade one answer differently.
FDEs run discovery and technical scoping alongside customer engineering and domain teams, and the role includes sequencing delivery and removing blockers early. At Aster, an unresolved source decision is a blocker, because a document can be relevant to a question and still be off-limits to the advisor asking it.
Open the meeting with three decisions to pursue. Source eligibility asks which approved versions apply to this inquiry, and whether this advisor may use them. Answer correctness asks what a claim and its supporting passage must show, including qualifications and conflicts. And review ownership asks who settles an open source question, and what evidence they need.
The internal-only boundary from the previous lesson still holds. The assistant gives no personalized client advice, sends no client messages, changes no portfolios, and places no transactions. The five undated notes from the 16-inquiry review are a provenance gap to reconcile, not proof of wrong answers.
Which sample answers go in the packet?
Prepare a packet of six sanitized examples. The first two concern the same product-fee inquiry; the rest broaden the discussion. These are discussion examples written for the meeting, not output from an assistant.
Superseded figure: “The maximum fee is 3%,” linked to report R1 version 1.
Definite fee: “The fee is 4%,” linked to R1 version 2.
Supported qualification: “The report describes a maximum of 4%,” linked to the exact passage in R1 version 2. The inquiry asks only what that report says.
Insufficient evidence: An inquiry asks about a fee exception, but none of the eligible passages mention exception terms. The answer says the evidence is insufficient and ...