AI can assist with document organization and analytical drafting, but it should not be treated as independent verification of a property’s condition, contracts or earnings. NIST identifies risks including confidently incorrect output, fabricated citations and privacy-related concerns in generative AI use. (nvlpubs.nist.gov)
Our recommended workflow is:
| Task | Suggested control |
|---|---|
| Extract a fee schedule | Preserve document and page references; require human confirmation |
| Map financial accounts | Reconcile mapped totals to the original statements |
| Summarize contracts | Have counsel validate consequential interpretations |
| Run sensitivities | Use tested spreadsheet formulas or calculation code |
| Draft competitor profiles | Verify primary sources and distinguish advertised from achieved performance |
| Analyze confidential material | Confirm upload authority, access controls, retention and permitted use |
Do not upload guest-level personal information merely because it is present in an operational export. Remove information unnecessary to the decision.
Use four visible evidence labels: verified, owner-provided, assumed and missing. Missing information should reduce confidence, not silently become a favorable assumption.
The acceptance test is straightforward: another reviewer should be able to reproduce the material conclusion from the cited documents and calculations without trusting the AI’s explanation.