The human sign-off is the product

In regulated work, the interesting question is not "can AI draft this?" It usually can. The question is who is responsible when it is wrong. If the answer is nobody, the tool cannot go near the work. So we build the answer in from the start: a named person checks and signs off, every time.

Why full automation is the wrong goal here

For a report that carries professional liability, or a letter that goes to a grieving family, or an estate account a beneficiary will scrutinise, "mostly right" is not a finish line. The value is not in removing the human. It is in giving the human a strong first draft with its sources attached, so the review is fast and the judgement stays theirs.

Sign-off has to be real, not a checkbox

A rubber stamp helps no one. For a review to mean something, the person doing it needs to see what the draft is based on. That is why grounding and sign-off go together. When every claim links to its source, the reviewer can check the parts that matter and trust the rest, instead of re-reading everything or waving it through.

It is also how you stay compliant

Several sectors are writing this expectation into their rules. RICS has standards on responsible use of AI in surveying, which is why our survey drafting tool produces the disclosure and reliability log alongside the report. The FCA expects regulated documents to be accountable, so our tool for insurance brokers keeps a named broker checking and signing. A tool that keeps a qualified person in control is not just safer, it is the version that fits the direction regulation is already heading.

The short version

Draft with the machine, decide with a person. Keep the sources visible so the decision is informed. That is the line we do not cross, and it is the reason the output is something you can actually use.