The Templi Guide
How UK advice firms write suitability reports that clients understand, reviewers trust, and teams can produce consistently — with or without AI-assisted drafting.
Start readingThis guide is for UK financial advice firms that want to improve the clarity, consistency and reviewability of their suitability reports. It is informed by good-practice principles, but it is not legal or compliance advice and should not replace your firm’s own compliance process.
Executive summary
Suitability reports are one of the most visible outputs in the advice process. They show the client what has been recommended, why it is suitable, what trade-offs have been considered, and what they need to do next.
For advice firms, report quality is also operational. A strong report is easier for a client to understand, easier for an adviser or paraplanner to review, and easier for the firm to produce consistently. A weak report creates avoidable friction: unclear objectives, generic rationale, repeated wording, hidden costs, boilerplate risks, and review cycles that take longer than they should.
This guide sets out a practical framework for improving suitability report quality, built on four connected principles:
Client clarity: the report should help the client understand the advice and make an informed decision.
Firm standard: the report should follow the firm’s approved template, tone, brand and compliance framework.
Reviewability: the report should make it easy to check the rationale, trace the source material, and approve the final output with confidence.
AI-readiness: the template should provide clear drafting instructions, separate fixed wording from case-specific content, and connect source material to the right sections, with human review built in.
These principles matter even more as firms start using AI-assisted drafting. Better outputs depend on better inputs: clear templates, well-labelled sections, controlled wording, visible source material, and human review. The goal is not more generic content produced faster. The goal is clearer, more consistent, more reviewable advice documentation that still fits the way each firm works.
Chapter 01 / 14
Clients, capacity pressure and AI-assisted drafting are all raising the bar for clarity and consistency.
Suitability reports have always mattered, but several pressures are making quality and consistency more important than ever.
A suitability report should help a client understand the advice in front of them. It should explain the recommendation in plain English, connect it to the client’s objectives, and make the costs, risks, disadvantages and next steps easy to find.
A report that is technically complete but hard to follow may still fail the client experience test. If the client has to work too hard to understand the recommendation, the report is not doing its job.
Most firms already have approved wording, standard sections, preferred risk explanations, and agreed ways of presenting charges. This consistency matters. It protects the firm’s standards and makes review easier.
But consistency should not become generic writing. The best reports use the firm’s structure and wording while still explaining the advice in a way that is specific to the client.
Report writing, fact-find clean-up, file checking, replacement comparisons and review responses take time. When documentation is hard to produce or hard to review, capacity becomes a constraint on growth.
Better templates and clearer report structures reduce this friction. They help advice teams spend less time rebuilding the case from scattered information and more time applying judgement.
AI can draft quickly, but speed is not the same as quality. If a firm’s template is unclear, duplicated or poorly structured, AI-assisted drafting is more likely to produce inconsistent or hard-to-review outputs.
The firms that get the best results from AI-assisted drafting are usually clear about:
what fixed wording must stay unchanged
which sections need case-specific drafting
what source information should be used
how objectives, rationale, risk and charges should be presented
who reviews and approves the final output
This is where template quality becomes a practical control, not just a formatting issue.
Chapter 02 / 14
Nine questions every report should answer without making the client search for them.
A good suitability report should answer the client’s main questions without making them search through the document.
Tick each one your current report answers within the first few pages.
The report should not feel like a file note, a research dump, or a generic product explanation. The best reports translate the work completed behind the scenes into something clear, personal and decision-ready.
For advice firms, this matters because the suitability report reflects the quality of the advice, the professionalism of the firm, and the care taken to communicate clearly with the client.
Chapter 03 / 14
Start with the client, use their language where it helps, write in plain English — and make the rationale visible.
A suitability report should begin with the client’s situation, goals and reason for seeking advice. The recommendation should feel like the next logical step in their story, not a product-led explanation that could apply to anyone.
Good report writing answers: what does the client want to achieve? Why does it matter to them? What has been recommended, and why is it suitable? What are the disadvantages, risks, costs and alternatives? And what should the client do next?
When a client has clearly described a goal, concern or priority, reflecting some of that language can make the report feel more personal and relevant.
This should be done carefully. Client wording should support the advice rationale, not replace professional judgement or the explanations required by the firm’s advice process.
Suitability reports are easier to trust when they are easy to read. Direct, conversational wording is usually more helpful than formal or technical phrasing.
Short sentences
Active voice
Clear headings
Specific explanations
Examples where they reduce confusion
Tables where they help the client compare options
Long paragraphs of technical explanation
Generic product descriptions
Jargon the client has to decode
Boilerplate risks that are not relevant to the recommendation
Repeating basic facts unless they are needed to explain the advice
Hiding important information in appendices
The client should be able to see the link between their objective and the recommendation. A report should not simply say “this recommendation is suitable because it meets your objectives”. It should explain how and why.
Toggle each example to see how the same recommendation reads when the rationale connects to the client.
This pension is suitable because it offers a wide range of funds.
This pension is suitable because it gives you access to the managed investment approach you prefer, while keeping the retirement funds in one place so future reviews are easier to manage.
The recommended ISA is suitable because it is tax efficient.
The recommended ISA is suitable because you want to invest for at least five years and keep access to the money if your circumstances change. The ISA wrapper allows any growth and income to be free from UK income tax and capital gains tax, subject to current rules.
The transfer is suitable because the new plan has more features.
The transfer is suitable because the new plan provides the flexible drawdown options you want for phased retirement. Your existing plan does not offer those options, so it would not support the way you expect to access income.
Chapter 04 / 14
A ten-part flow that moves from the client’s situation to the advice, the reasons, the risks, the costs and the next steps.
A strong suitability report usually works best when it moves from the client’s situation to the advice, then to the reasons, risks, costs and next steps.
Executive summary
The advice in brief, including the key recommendation, main reason, costs, risks and next step.
Client context
Relevant background, scope of advice, soft facts, and the reason advice was needed.
Objectives
The goals the advice is designed to meet, with enough detail to assess suitability.
Risk profile
A plain-English summary of attitude to risk, capacity for loss, need to take risk, knowledge and experience, and time horizon where relevant.
Recommendation
What is being recommended, stated clearly before the supporting detail.
Reasons why
How the recommendation meets the client’s objectives and why key features were selected.
Disadvantages and risks
Personalised points that explain what the client gives up, what could go wrong, and why the recommendation remains suitable.
Charges
Clear costs in pounds and percentages where possible, with the impact explained in client terms.
Replacement business, if relevant
A fair comparison of costs, features, risks, performance where relevant, and alternatives considered.
Appendices
Supporting information for clients who want more detail, without hiding key risks or advice rationale away from the main report.
This structure should be adapted to the advice area. Protection, pension, bond, investment, drawdown and replacement advice do not all need the same level of detail in the same places. A good template gives enough structure for consistency while leaving room for case-specific rationale.
Chapter 05 / 14
Outcomes, not products — with enough detail to test whether the recommendation actually helps.
Objectives should be specific enough to test whether the recommendation helps.
A weak objective is often a solution in disguise, such as wanting to invest a lump sum or open a pension. A stronger objective explains the outcome behind it: the income needed, the timeframe, the purpose, the priority, and any constraints.
Useful prompts include:
What is the client trying to achieve?
How much do they need?
By when?
For how long?
Why does this matter now?
What happens if they do nothing?
What trade-offs are they willing or unwilling to accept?
The same client instruction, written as a product request and as an outcome.
You want to invest £100,000.
You want to invest £100,000 for long-term growth over at least five years, while keeping a separate cash reserve so you do not need to access the investment in the short term.
You want to review your pension.
You want to understand whether your current pension arrangements are on track to support your planned retirement at age 62, including whether they can provide flexible income when you reduce your working hours.
You want life cover.
You want to make sure your family could repay the mortgage and maintain their standard of living if you died during the mortgage term.
You want to transfer your pension.
You want a pension arrangement that can support flexible drawdown in retirement, because your existing plan does not offer the access options you expect to need.
AI-assisted drafting can help structure messy meeting notes and fact-find information into clearer objective wording. However, the adviser or paraplanner still needs to check that the objective is accurate, complete, and suitable for the advice being given.
Chapter 06 / 14
Every recommendation should connect back to this client and this objective — not to any client with a pulse.
The recommendation section should be concise and actionable. It should say what is being recommended before explaining the supporting detail.
The reasons why should connect the recommendation back to the client. It is not enough to say that a plan has lower charges, broader fund choice, ethical investment options or a stronger feature set. The report should explain why that matters for this client and this objective.
For each recommendation in a report, ask:
Toggle each example to see the difference between describing the product and explaining the advice.
The recommended platform offers access to a wide range of funds and online reporting.
The recommended platform is suitable because it gives you access to the managed investment approach we discussed and allows your pension and ISA investments to be reviewed together each year. This supports your preference for a simpler, consolidated approach.
The plan has competitive charges and a strong investment range.
The plan is suitable because it reduces your ongoing product cost while still providing the investment options needed for your agreed risk profile. This matters because charges will affect the amount available to support your retirement income.
The new pension has flexible drawdown.
The new pension is suitable because you want to reduce work gradually from age 60 rather than stop immediately. Flexible drawdown gives you more control over how and when you take income.
Different advice areas may need different supporting detail. A good template makes room for the right case-specific rationale without overwhelming the client.
Chapter 07 / 14
Trade-offs given proper weight — and charges the client can see in one place, in pounds and percentages.
Disadvantages and risks should be easy to find and given proper weight. A useful distinction:
Disadvantage: something known or expected, such as higher charges, loss of a feature, or giving up a guarantee.
Risk: something that may happen, such as investment performance not making up for higher costs, or income not lasting as long as expected.
Avoid long generic lists. A client is more likely to understand three relevant risks than two pages of boilerplate.
Boilerplate risk wording, rewritten so it means something to the client reading it.
Investments can go down as well as up.
The value of your investment can fall. Because you plan to use this money to support retirement income, a fall in value shortly before or after retirement could affect how much income you can take.
There is a risk of inflation.
If inflation is higher than expected, the buying power of your withdrawals may reduce over time. This matters because you want your retirement income to support your regular spending for the long term.
You may lose benefits by transferring.
By transferring, you will give up the guaranteed annuity rate on your existing pension. This is a known disadvantage. We have recommended the transfer because you prioritised flexible access over a guaranteed income, but you should understand that this guarantee cannot usually be reinstated once given up.
Charges should be shown clearly in both pounds (£) and percentages (%). Show the total aggregated cost for year one, including the initial charge and all ongoing charges for that year. Where there are advice, product, platform, fund, DFM or wrapper costs, include all applicable charges so the client can see the total picture without piecing it together from multiple documents. Show the ongoing annual total separately so the client can distinguish year-one costs from costs in later years.
Good charge disclosure should answer:
What will the client pay initially?
What is the total aggregated cost for year one, including the initial charge and all ongoing charges, in both £ and % terms?
What will the client pay each year?
Which charges are paid to the adviser, product provider, platform, fund manager or DFM?
How are charges taken?
What is the estimated cost in pounds?
How might charges affect the outcome?
Are the charges higher or lower than the current arrangement?
If higher, what client benefit justifies the additional cost?
Illustrative example only: £100,000 invested for a full year, with an initial advice charge of £1,000 paid separately. All percentages use the same £100,000 basis. The investment value is assumed to remain unchanged, and the charges listed are assumed to be all applicable charges in this example. Actual reports should include every applicable charge and explain the calculation basis and any estimates.
Charge type | Percentage | Estimated cost (£) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
Initial advice charge | 1.00% | £1,000 | One-off charge, paid separately from the £100,000 investment in this example. |
Ongoing advice charge | 0.75% | £750 | Based on an investment value of £100,000. |
Platform charge | 0.25% | £250 | Charged by the platform for administration and custody. |
Fund charge | 0.60% | £600 | Charged by the underlying investment funds. |
Total ongoing cost | 1.60% | £1,600 | The actual cost will change if the investment value rises or falls. |
Total year-one cost (initial + ongoing) | 2.60% | £2,600 | £1,000 initial charge + £1,600 ongoing charges for year one. |
Chapter 08 / 14
Particular care is needed when the client may be giving something up.
Replacement business needs particular care because the client may be giving something up. A strong report should explain:
What the existing arrangement does and does not provide
What the recommended arrangement improves
Any additional cost and the client benefit that justifies it
Whether performance comparison is relevant and, if used, whether it is fair
Whether risk is being compared on a like-for-like basis
Whether product features genuinely matter to the client
Which realistic alternatives were considered and why they were not recommended
This is also where template quality becomes especially important. The report needs to bring together comparison data, client objectives, firm wording and case-specific rationale in a way that is easy to review before it is sent.
Before finalising a replacement recommendation, work through these:
The difference between listing features and explaining the trade-off.
The new plan is recommended because it has more investment options and better online access.
The new plan is recommended because your current pension does not support the flexible drawdown access you want from age 62. The new plan also allows your adviser to manage the investment strategy in line with your agreed risk profile. You will pay higher ongoing charges, so the recommendation depends on the value you place on flexible access, ongoing advice, and having the plan reviewed each year.
We recommend switching because the existing plan has limited fund choice.
We recommend switching because the existing plan does not offer the managed portfolio approach selected for your retirement income strategy. Fund choice alone is not the reason for the recommendation; the main reason is that the new arrangement better supports the way you expect to take income and review withdrawals.
Chapter 09 / 14
Most report quality issues begin in the template, not the final draft.
Many report quality issues begin in the template, not the final draft. Common weaknesses include:
Objectives written as product instructions rather than client outcomes
Duplicated fixed wording across multiple sections
Vague placeholders such as “[insert reason]” or “[add risk wording]”
Optional sections that are not clearly marked
Long compliance wording placed before the client understands the recommendation
Generic risk lists that are rarely tailored
Charges spread across several sections
Replacement comparisons that do not make trade-offs clear
Inconsistent headings and table formats
Unclear separation between fixed wording and case-specific drafting
Appendices used as a place to hide important rationale
Manual formatting that makes the document hard to update or review
These issues matter because they slow down drafting and review. They also make AI-assisted drafting harder to control. If the template does not clearly show what information is needed, where it should go, and what should stay fixed, the draft is more likely to need heavy rework.
Chapter 10 / 14
Typography, colour, layout and branding that help the client navigate — not decoration for its own sake.
Use styling to make the report clear, professional and recognisably yours—not as decoration. Keep typography, colours, layout and branding consistent so the client can easily navigate the document.
Use readable fonts, clear heading styles and enough spacing to avoid dense pages. Keep body text, headings and tables easy to read, and use Word styles rather than manual formatting where possible.
Use colour purposefully: apply the firm’s main brand colour to headings and small accents, lighter shades to callout boxes, and neutral colours to body text. Make sure all text remains easy to read on screen and in print.
Structure the report with clear sections, page breaks, tables for key information and callout boxes for important points. Avoid large blocks of text, cramped tables and unnecessary design elements.
Apply the firm’s logo, colours, table styles, footer details and contact information consistently throughout.
Chapter 11 / 14
Clear structure in, reviewable drafts out — and human approval at the centre.
Firms get better AI-generated drafts when their templates are clear, consistent and purposeful. Recommended template improvements:
Name sections clearly and consistently
Separate fixed compliance wording from sections that need case-specific drafting
Remove duplicated wording that appears in multiple places
Use placeholders that describe the information needed, not vague labels
Keep optional sections clearly marked so irrelevant content can be removed
Use standard table formats for charges, objectives, replacement comparisons and recommendations
Keep brand styling in Word styles rather than manual formatting
Build templates around the firm’s actual advice process, not an idealised version nobody follows
Make source requirements clear for each section
Include review prompts where judgement is needed
Make it obvious which sections are client-facing and which are internal drafting guidance
AI-assisted drafting works best when the system can understand the purpose of each section, the information that belongs there, the wording that must not change, the client data and advice notes that should be used, the output style the firm expects, and the checks a human reviewer needs to make.
A clear template gives the drafting process a clearer path. It reduces unnecessary rewriting, helps preserve firm wording, and makes the final report easier to inspect. This is where template-native AI matters: Templi is designed to work inside a firm’s existing templates and standards, rather than forcing every firm into the same generic report structure.
AI can support the drafting workflow. It should not replace the judgement, responsibility or approval process at the centre of regulated advice.
Chapter 12 / 14
Four working checklists — client clarity, firm standard, reviewability and AI-readiness. Your progress is saved as you go.
Use these checklists to review whether a suitability report template is helping or hindering. Work through them against a recent report — your ticks are saved in your browser, so you can come back to them.
Chapter 13 / 14
Five steps, starting with one recent report — and fixing the template, not just the draft.
Firms do not need to rebuild every template at once. A practical approach is to start with the areas that cause the most review friction.
Review one recent report
Choose a report that went through a normal advice and review process. Mark up where the recommendation became clear, where the rationale felt generic, where the reviewer asked for changes, where costs or risks were hard to follow, where wording was duplicated, and where the client-specific explanation was strongest.
Identify repeatable issues
Look for problems likely to appear again: unclear objectives, missing trade-offs, vague replacement rationale, scattered cost information, long product explanations, optional sections left in when not relevant, and review comments that repeat across cases.
Improve the template, not just the report
If the same issue appears repeatedly, fix it at source. Vague objectives? Add prompts for amount, timeframe, purpose, priority and consequences of doing nothing. Generic risks? Add a client-specific risks section before any standard wording. Scattered charges? One standard charge table with a short client-facing explanation.
Test the revised template
Use it on a small number of cases. Did it reduce drafting time? Did it reduce review comments? Did the report feel easier to follow? Did the adviser or paraplanner need less rework? Did the client-facing explanation improve?
Keep the template under review
Templates should not be static. They should improve as the firm learns which sections create confusion, delay or unnecessary rework.
Chapter 14 / 14
Clearer drafts inside your own templates, with advisers and paraplanners firmly in control.
Templi helps advice firms produce suitability report drafts that are clearer, more consistent and easier to review. It works with the firm’s own templates, wording and advice process, so drafts are shaped around the way the firm already works. Advisers and paraplanners remain in control: they review the output, check the rationale, and approve the final report before it is sent.
Templi supports the structured work around advice, including:
Turning meeting context and client information into clearer draft sections
Working inside firm-standard templates
Preserving required wording and structure
Reducing repetitive drafting work
Keeping outputs reviewable
Supporting a clearer handoff between advice, paraplanning and review
The result is not generic AI content. It is a more structured, reviewable way to move from client information and advice notes to a firm-standard suitability report draft.
Better suitability reports are not just better written. They are clearer for clients, easier for advisers and paraplanners to review, and closer to the way each firm already works. The most useful improvements are practical:
Write objectives as client outcomes
Make the recommendation clear early
Connect rationale to the client’s circumstances
Personalise risks and disadvantages
Show charges clearly
Treat replacement business with care
Separate fixed wording from case-specific drafting
Make templates easier to review
Keep human approval at the centre
See how Templi turns client context and adviser recommendations into a firm-standard suitability report draft — reviewable, traceable, and always under human control.