A financial adviser may object to The Leveller being used on a suitability report for several overlapping reasons. Some are legitimate. Some are defensive.
The fair version is this: a suitability report is a regulated artefact. It is meant to evidence the adviser’s professional judgement, the client’s circumstances, the rationale for the recommendation, the risks, the costs, the alternatives considered, and why the advice is suitable. A careful planner may worry that AI could misread nuance, overstate weaknesses, hallucinate risks, or make clients anxious about something that is actually reasonable in context.
That concern is not absurd. Suitability is contextual. A report can look poor to an automated tool if the surrounding conversations, fact-find, cashflow work, risk profiling, vulnerability assessment, tax position, or client preferences are not included.
But that is not the whole story.
The deeper reason many advisers may not want The Leveller near their suitability reports is because it changes the power relationship.
A suitability report is usually written by the adviser, for the client, in a language and structure controlled by the firm. It often looks comprehensive, but the client may not know what is missing, what has been normalised, or what questions to ask. The Leveller gives the client a second lens. It does not need to replace professional judgement. It simply asks: “Before you sign, do you understand the risks, costs, assumptions, lock-ins, conflicts, and long-tail consequences?”
That can feel threatening.
The most obvious adviser objections would be:
First, loss of narrative control. The adviser has framed the recommendation. The Leveller may reframe it from the client’s perspective: “What could go wrong?” “What are you giving up?” “Where is discretion being delegated?” “Are the charges proportionate?” “What assumptions are doing the heavy lifting?”
Second, exposure of template advice. Many reports appear personalised but are heavily templated. If The Leveller identifies generic wording, vague rationale, unsupported assumptions, or missing alternatives, it may reveal that the “personal recommendation” is less individually reasoned than the client assumed.
Third, commercial discomfort. A suitability report often supports a transaction that generates initial and ongoing revenue. If The Leveller asks whether the same client outcome could be achieved with less cost, less complexity, less product dependency, or less ongoing adviser control, that goes straight to the business model.
Fourth, conflict-of-interest visibility. The adviser may have disclosed costs and conflicts technically, but disclosure is not the same as comprehension. The Leveller’s value is that it can translate buried implications into plain English. That is precisely what some firms may not welcome.
Fifth, fear of complaint amplification. A client who better understands the report may ask better questions before proceeding. Or, in a harm case, they may identify weaknesses after the event. Advisers may fear AI becoming an accountability tool.
Sixth, professional identity threat. Some planners genuinely believe their value lies in human judgement, empathy and wisdom. Fair enough. But if a client-side tool can spot weak reasoning, unclear costs, omitted risks or poor explanations, it challenges the idea that “human” automatically means “better”.
There is also a distinction worth making.
Check out: ‘I wouldn’t let AI near our suitability reports’ – planner Shaw, Citywire 11 June 2026.
Kate Shaw is saying she would not let AI write suitability reports. That is a different issue from letting The Leveller review one.
Writing the report is adviser-side production.
Reviewing the report is client-side comprehension.
Those should not be conflated.
A strong adviser should have no problem with a client using The Leveller. In fact, a genuinely client-centred adviser could welcome it, because it helps the client arrive better informed, with clearer questions and a stronger sense of agency.
The red flag is not: “We do not use AI to write our reports.”
The red flag is: “We do not want clients using AI to understand our reports.”
That distinction is central to AoLP’s mission. The Leveller is not trying to replace the adviser’s judgement. It is trying to reduce capability asymmetry before the client signs. In plain English: it helps the person on the weaker side of the document understand what they are being asked to accept.
A useful framing might be:
“Advisers should absolutely retain responsibility for their suitability reports. But clients should not be expected to rely solely on the adviser’s explanation of the adviser’s own recommendation. The Leveller gives clients an independent comprehension layer before they sign — especially where long-term harm may not surface for years.”
That is the agency point.
The best advisers will not fear that. They will see it as informed consent made stronger.
The weaker, more product-dependent, more template-driven or more defensive firms may see it as a problem. And that probably tells us something.
The Leveller: for every moment you see “T&Cs apply” and wonder what you’re really agreeing to.
Before you sign.
Before you click.
Before you commit.
7 in 10 don’t read the small print. The Leveller uses ai to help you understand contracts, agreements, terms and conditions in plain English—so you can make informed decisions with confidence.
Pay once: £4.99. No subscription. Use it as often as you need, with updates included.
Because power hides in the small print.
“The Leveller is becoming genuinely useful for people trying to make sense of difficult paperwork at moments of stress and vulnerability.” Debra Sofia Magdalene, Retrofit Right Campaign
Download The Leveller today on App Store and understand before you sign.👉 TRY THE LEVELLER.
Academy of Life Planning 