Robo-Advisors Editing and Proofreading Services

An automated advice service replaces a conversation with a form, which means every judgement a human adviser would make in the room has to be anticipated in writing. There is nobody to notice that a client has misunderstood a question, nobody to ask why someone with three months' savings wants a high-risk portfolio, and nobody to soften the news in a bad quarter. The interface copy is the adviser, and the regulatory file consists of what the customer was shown and what they clicked.

We edit what digital wealth and automated advice firms produce — onboarding and suitability questionnaires, risk profiling questions and outcome explanations, portfolio recommendation and rationale screens, key information and cost disclosures, terms of business and client agreements, in-app education and glossary content, market volatility and drawdown communications, rebalancing and portfolio change notifications, top-up, withdrawal and account closure flows, tax wrapper explanations and allowance guidance, customer service macros and escalation criteria, financial promotions and acquisition copy, and regulatory submissions covering the advice process. Our editors check that the recorded answers can genuinely support the recommendation given, and that the copy never implies certainty the model cannot deliver.

The risk questionnaire is where an automated service either builds a defensible file or a fragile one, and most are constructed from questions that measure the wrong thing. Asking a customer how they would feel if their investment fell 20% collects a prediction about a hypothetical emotion from someone who has never experienced it, which is a poor guide to what they will do in a real drawdown and a poor foundation for a suitability file. We rewrite these so questions ask about circumstances rather than sentiment — how long until the money is needed, what would happen if it were worth 20% less at that point, what other savings are available — so capacity for loss is captured separately from attitude to risk rather than blended into one score, so contradictory answers trigger a visible challenge rather than being silently averaged, and so the resulting recommendation is explained back in terms of the answers that drove it. That last step is what makes the file readable later, by a reviewer or by the customer themselves.

Everything you send is treated in strict confidence, including customer journeys, model documentation and material in draft. We are editors rather than advisers or compliance professionals, and nothing here is financial advice; your compliance function must approve customer-facing material. What we can do is make the writing plain, careful and consistent with what the process can actually support.