If your AI use isn’t standardized and documented, it’s difficult to defend.
By Bill Lane, Ethos Financial Group
AI is already inside many RIA workflows.
The question is whether you can clearly explain how.
For CCOs and IT leaders, that’s where the pressure is building. It’s no longer enough to say a tool improves efficiency or helps advisors move faster. Examiners want to understand what the tool does, how it’s used, and what controls are in place around it.
If that answer depends on a mix of vendor language, internal assumptions, and advisor interpretation, it’s not a strong position.
Because from a compliance standpoint, AI introduces a familiar challenge in a new form. If you can’t demonstrate consistency, oversight, and documentation, you’re exposed.
Right now, many firms are operating in a gray area. AI tools are being tested, adopted, and layered into workflows, but governance often lags behind. Policies are still evolving. Usage varies by advisor. Documentation is inconsistent.
That gap matters.
Without a clear framework, it becomes difficult to answer basic but critical questions:
And more importantly, can you show that process in a way that holds up under scrutiny?
This is where structure starts to matter as much as capability.
Tools like Praktikant are designed with that reality in mind. By working within existing systems, they help standardize how AI is applied across the firm while creating a clear record of inputs, outputs, and actions taken. Instead of relying on individual interpretation, firms can point to a consistent, auditable process.
For CCOs and IT leaders, that creates a more defensible position. Governance is easier to define. Oversight is easier to demonstrate. And conversations with examiners become grounded in process, not explanation.
Because the goal isn’t to avoid using AI. It’s to be able to stand behind how it’s used.
To assess where your firm stands, download the RIA Operational Efficiency Grader. It’s a quick way to identify gaps in governance, workflows, and oversight.
