Library
White paperMichael Clark
Defensible Advice at Scale
In our experience, many firms answer whether a client's AI estate is defensible matter by matter, and that approach costs the firm four ways: it does not scale, does not stay current, rests on untested facts and leaves the firm's own AI use exposed. Every answer turns on one system's facts and the law in force that day. The alternative is a versioned, cited, evidenced record, with interpretation and operational assurance labelled separately and an independence screen run at intake and at every change of scope.
Key findings
- The matter-by-matter approach of matter team, spreadsheet and memo costs the firm four ways: it does not scale, does not stay current, rests on untested facts and leaves the firm's own AI use exposed.
- The unit of advice a firm can best defend is a versioned conclusion, bound to its facts and to the law in force when it was reached.
- Interpretation assurance and operational assurance are different products; neither implies the other, and each deliverable should say which it gives.
In the paper
- Four costs that fall on the firm
- The law moves under every answer
- A different unit of advice
- The firm's own tools
- Two kinds of assurance
- Independence belongs in scoping
- What the method does not do
- Versioning is the step that cannot wait
Michael Clark
Chief Executive Officer, Standard Intelligence
Your next step