Dynamic Planner

The engine here is the wrong kind of model for this axis and the vendor is candid about the rest. What the platform runs on is a psychometric questionnaire and a forward looking quantitative asset risk model across seventy five asset classes, which are behavioural science and quantitative finance rather than inference. The inference features are recent, described by the company as amplifying automation that already existed, and stated in its own words to be entirely optional.

Strip them and the platform runs unchanged. The build is earned because live meeting transcription is shipped inference doing real work, and because the open interface deliberately lets a firm's own agentic tooling operate inside the platform. A vendor that calls its artificial intelligence optional has answered this axis about itself, which is the second time in this session a vendor has done so.

Control sits with the firm by design and it is stated at two levels. Adoption itself is a choice, with the company describing use of its artificial intelligence features as entirely optional, and the certified management framework the features are developed under commits the company to traceability, transparency and reliability in what it ships. A published charter sets out how the technology will be applied.

Held below the top grade because none of that specifies a gate at a point in the workflow: no statement describes what a transcript or a generated insight passes through before it reaches a client record, whether generated content is distinguishable from adviser written content, or what happens when an adviser's own agentic tooling drives processes inside the platform through the open interface, which is the least supervised path the product offers.

Two things lift this above the norm and each has a limit worth stating. The first is a published performance record for the underlying risk model against its own targets: the company states the model has performed within expected value at risk targets across a nineteen year history including two named stress periods, and that all profiled holdings undergo formal quarterly review.

A revalidation cadence is precisely what this index records as absent almost everywhere, and here it exists and is published. The second is that inference features are developed under an externally audited management framework that commits the company to traceability and reliability.

Held below the top grade because both attest to process and to the quantitative model rather than to the inference layer: no accuracy figure, error rate, benchmark or evaluation result is published for transcription or for any generated insight.

The strongest form of evidence this index recognises is present here: independent parties with money at stake publishing the relationship in their own name, in documents where being wrong would cost them. A large United Kingdom investment platform publishes an adviser facing risk profiling guide describing this vendor as the market leader in the field and stating that its own managed portfolio ranges and funds are deliberately built to target risk profiles identified by this system.

A major life and pensions group publishes a table of this vendor's risk ratings against its own funds in its own adviser literature. Neither is a testimonial the vendor solicited; both are firms embedding the vendor's output in their product design and telling advisers so. Combined with a stated penetration figure across a national advice market, that clears the bar.

The certified framework covers responsible use of the technology across the organisation, which is a governance commitment rather than a statement about customer content, and this record credits it on the axes it directly addresses rather than spreading one credential across four.

Searched for a statement on whether client meeting audio, transcripts, psychometric responses or advice firm content are used to train, tune or evaluate any model, whether any model provider retains content, and whether material from one firm can influence output shown to another, and located none. The accumulated corpus is unusual in scale, since over a million individuals have completed the profiling process, and nothing published states what may be done with it.

Recorded as an unverified absence. The material at stake is personal and detailed: psychometric responses about a client's attitude to risk, capacity for loss, financial circumstances and objectives, and now live meeting audio and transcripts. Searched for a retention schedule, a deletion commitment, and any statement of how long meeting audio or transcripts persist once processed, and located none. The certified management framework the company holds addresses responsible use of artificial intelligence rather than data handling terms, and this index treats those as separate questions.

Recorded as an unverified absence, and it is the likeliest row in this record to be wrong. The company holds an accredited international management system certification in an adjacent domain and has appointed a head of technical innovation and cyber security, which makes a corresponding information security certification probable, but an appointment is not a credential and probability is not evidence.

Searched for an enumerated information security standard, an audit report or a trust page and located none, and a dedicated security page was not located and read. The queued check is specific and would likely settle it in one fetch.

The company holds no licence and requires none, and no penalty applies for that. Its position relative to the perimeter is unusual enough to state precisely: the risk profile this platform produces is a substantial input to a suitability assessment that a regulated firm must be able to defend, and asset managers build products deliberately targeted at these profiles, so a large share of one national advice market rests on a scale defined by an unsupervised private company. That is a structural observation about the market rather than a criticism of the vendor, and nothing published addresses how a firm evidences the basis of a profile to an examiner.

This grade is earned from an artificial intelligence specific certification rather than from a vendor's own account of itself, which almost nothing in this index can claim. In November 2025 the company certified to the international artificial intelligence management system standard, the first in its sector to do so, and that certification is issued by an accredited third party, runs on a fixed term and covers ethics, transparency, accountability and risk management across the development and delivery of its features.

A charter governing application of the technology is published alongside it. Held below the top grade because a certified management system attests that governance processes exist and were audited, not that any model was tested for fairness: no metric, no evaluation across client populations and no result is published.

The exposure that would matter is specific and unexamined in public, since a psychometric instrument assigning a risk score determines what a client may be recommended, and such instruments are known to vary across age, language and financial literacy.

Searched for a warranty, an accuracy commitment, a service level, a correction obligation or any allocation of responsibility, and located none, and no disclaimer placing it plainly on the advice firm was located either. The exposure has an unusual shape because the output is a scale others build against: a client assigned the wrong risk profile receives recommendations drawn from a solution set constructed for a different profile, and the consequence surfaces years later in outcomes rather than immediately in a document. A client has no described route to see how their profile was derived or to contest it, and the advice firm carries the suitability obligation alone.

Searched product pages, the certification announcement and the dedicated artificial intelligence page for a provider, a model family, a version or an inference host, and located none. One published detail is worth separating carefully because it looks like a disclosure and is not one: the company states that a firm can either transcribe meetings live inside the platform or import transcripts from a named video conferencing service.

That describes two paths and identifies who performs the work in the second, while leaving the first unattributed, so a buyer learns which route avoids the vendor's own unnamed processing without learning what that processing is.

Two directions are published and the outbound one is the more interesting. Fund and solution data flows inbound directly from asset managers, product providers and investment platforms rather than through an aggregator, which is what allows profiling on actual holdings, trading and tactics.

Outbound, the company publishes an open programmatic interface and states explicitly that a firm can point its own existing automation or agentic tooling at the platform to drive processes inside it, which is a deliberate decision to let other systems operate the product. A video conferencing service is named as a transcript source. Held below the top grade because the integration estate is given as a count of more than twenty six rather than a list, and no back office, platform or planning system is named individually.

Recorded as an unverified absence. The platform is delivered as hosted software and nothing about topology is published. Searched for hosting regions, storage location, a tenancy statement and any contractual residency commitment, and located none.

Consequence is narrower here than elsewhere because customers and regulator sit in one jurisdiction, but the question is not answered, and the open interface that allows external agentic tooling to operate inside the platform raises a version of it the published material does not reach.

Searched for a rate, a tier structure, a per adviser figure or any statement of whether the artificial intelligence features are included in an existing licence or charged separately, and located none on the vendor's own material. A competitor's comparison page asserts that the features sit behind a separate review licence, and this index does not grade a commercial position from a rival's characterisation of it, so that claim earns nothing in either direction.

The two sided model makes the omission wider than usual, because asset managers paying to have solutions profiled and advice firms paying to use the platform are buying different things at prices neither can see.

Penetration is stated with a number rather than asserted, which is rare, and it covers both sides of a two sided market. The company states that more than forty percent of United Kingdom investment advice firms use the platform and that over one hundred and sixty asset managers do too, alongside discretionary managers, platforms and product providers who pay to have solutions profiled against the same model. Over a million individuals have completed the profiling process.

The buyer types therefore span advice firms, manufacturers and distributors rather than a single constituency. What holds this below the top grade is jurisdiction: the platform, the regulatory frame it is built around and the entire published customer base sit in one country.