Export screen PDFs

Renders each Nirio screen to a single-page PDF and downloads them as a zip.

Suitability report checker

Pre-submission evidence check against the configured ruleset. Nirio is not an advice approval engine and does not replace human compliance judgement.

Every report you submit is checked against all applicable rules in the active ruleset (automated document oversight for those controls). This is reviewer-facing evidence analysis — not FCA compliance approval, not full COBS coverage, and not suitability sign-off.

Specialist review modes

Replacement business review

Focused evidence review for pension/investment switches, transfers, consolidations and replacement business.

This specialist mode does not approve replacement business or confirm suitability. It highlights replacement-business evidence gaps for human review.

Open replacement review

Internal consistency review

Focused coherence check for possible inconsistencies between client profile, objectives, risk, capacity for loss, time horizon, liquidity needs, and recommendation.

This specialist mode does not determine suitability or approve advice. It highlights possible inconsistencies for human review.

Open internal consistency review

Nirio checks suitability-report evidence against a defined ruleset. It is not an advice approval engine, does not confirm suitability, and does not replace qualified compliance judgement. Use findings to decide whether manual review is required.

Review band: Amber

⚠ 3 items to review

Use Priority Review Actions below to decide whether manual compliance review is required before sign-off.

Text-only analysis

3 issues found14 checks passed5 not applicable

Created

2026-07-16 09:42

Checked

2026-07-16 09:43

Ruleset

nirio-cobs v12

Advice type

advised

Investment element

true

Ongoing service

false

Completeness

78%

Needs review

Not applicable

Summary

The report evidences most suitability requirements but lacks a comparison of alternatives and explicit rejection reasoning. Three priority actions identified for reviewer attention before sign-off.

Completeness excludes “Not applicable” controls. It’s a rough guide, not a compliance guarantee.

Priority review actions

Reviewer-facing triage for high-risk or complex cases. Evidence-oriented summary from the checks below (not automated suitability approval or full FCA compliance validation).

Use these findings to decide whether manual compliance review is required. Severity band: high.

Alternatives not compared

COBS 9.2.1 · COBS 9.2.1R · R-ALT-01

Issue

No alternatives identified in the report (expected ≥1, found 0)

What’s required

State the alternative options considered and why they were rejected

Supporting excerpts

“The recommended solution was selected based on your objectives…”

Example wording

“We also considered a drawdown approach and a combined annuity strategy; these were discounted because…”

Draft fix

Rule ID: R-ALT-01

Needs review3

Alternatives not compared

COBS 9.2.1 · COBS 9.2.1R · R-ALT-01

Issue

No alternatives identified in the report (expected ≥1, found 0)

What’s required

State the alternative options considered and why they were rejected

Supporting excerpts

“The recommended solution was selected based on your objectives…”

Example wording

“We also considered a drawdown approach and a combined annuity strategy; these were discounted because…”

Draft fix

Rule ID: R-ALT-01

Passed14

No items in this run.

Not assessed5

No items in this run.

Developer / raw output

{ "run_id": "rn_8f2a", "completeness_pct": 78, "summary": { "ok": 14, "potential_issue": 3, "not_assessed": 5 } }

Management information

Oversight view: every report checked against the configured ruleset (configured evidence controls). Run volume, rule-level issue counts, common evidence gaps, and manual review candidates. Use with Priority Review Actions on individual runs — not automated compliance approval.

MI summarises checker outcomes against configured evidence controls. Green / Amber / Red completeness bands and potential-issue counts help identify manual review candidates — not FCA compliance sign-off.

Time range

Runs

248

Guidance calls

Errors

Users

Triage grade distribution (foundation)

Reviewer triage — not approval

Green

142

Amber

Red

Critical

Recent runs

Time	Run ID	User	Ruleset	OK	Potential issues	Not applicable	Completeness	Open
2026-07-16 09:43	rn_8f2a	dave@nirio.ai	nirio-cobs v12	14	3	5	78%	View
2026-07-16 08:11	rn_71bc	sara@nirio.ai	nirio-cobs v12	17	1	3	91%	View
2026-07-15 16:30	rn_5d9e	mike@nirio.ai	nirio-cobs v12	12	4	6	72%	View

Rule-level issue counts

Rule	Title	Issue count	% of runs
R-ALT-01	Alternatives compared	42	17%
R-RISK-03	Capacity for loss evidenced	31	12%
R-OBJ-02	Objectives aligned to recommendation	24	10%

Common evidence gaps

Alternatives rarely documented

Rule: R-ALT-01 · Issue count: 42 · % of runs: 17%

Across reviewed runs, the comparison of alternative options is the most frequent evidence gap.

User / adviser rankings

User	Runs	Potential issues	Avg issues/run	Avg completeness
dave@nirio.ai	86	14	0.16	81%
sara@nirio.ai	74	6	0.08	90%
mike@nirio.ai	88	19	0.22	73%

LLM guidance log

Time	User	Rule	Title	Section	Status	Model	Error
2026-07-16 09:45	dave@nirio.ai	R-ALT-01	Alternatives compared	COBS 9.2	ok	gemini-3-flash	-
2026-07-16 08:14	sara@nirio.ai	R-RISK-03	Capacity for loss	COBS 9A	ok	gemini-3-flash	-

Q3 Pension switch campaign

Population Review · Campaign ID cmp_2026_07 · 2026-07-15 10:00

Export CSV New campaign All campaigns

Population Review aggregates deterministic suitability-report checks for reviewer support. It does not confirm suitability, approve advice, or replace accountable human review.

Files submitted

Processed

Errors

Empty / unsupported

Green

Amber

Red

High severity

Immediate review

Review queue

Open the highest-risk reports first. Each processed report links to the standard Nirio checker.

Client / filename	Band	Completeness	Priority	Severity	Top finding	Status
J. Smith — pension_switch.docx	Red	61	3	high	Alternatives not compared	processed	Open review
A. Khan — isa_transfer.pdf	Amber	74	2	medium	Capacity for loss thin	processed	Open review
M. Owen — gia_review.docx	Green	92	0	none	—	processed	Open review
bad_file.pdf	—	—	—	—	—	error	unsupported file

Population findings — frequently triggered rules

Rule	Reports affected	% of processed	Severity	Status breakdown
Alternatives compared	42	18%	high	OK 3 · PI 39 · FAIL 0 · NA 3
Capacity for loss evidenced	31	13%	medium	OK 14 · PI 31 · FAIL 0 · NA 0

Recurring missing-evidence patterns

Pattern	Reports affected	% of processed	Example rules
No alternatives documented	42	18%	R-ALT-01, R-ALT-02
Risk tolerance not quantified	24	10%	R-RISK-03

High-priority reports

J. Smith — pension_switch.docx Red critical · 61% complete · 3 issue(s) · Open checker result
P. Lee — drawdown_review.pdf Red high · 58% complete · 4 issue(s) · Open checker result

Per-report results

File	Status	Band	Completeness	Severity	Issues	Priority	Context used
J. Smith — pension_switch.docx	processed	Red	61%	high	3	3	advised · inv=yes · ongoing=no	View
A. Khan — isa_transfer.pdf	processed	Amber	74%	medium	2	2	advised · inv=yes · ongoing=yes	View
M. Owen — gia_review.docx	processed	Green	92%	none	0	0	nonadvised · inv=no · ongoing=no	View
bad_file.pdf	error	—	—	—	0	0	—	unsupported file

Limitations. Population Review aggregates deterministic suitability-report checks for reviewer support. It does not confirm suitability, approve advice, or replace accountable human review. Percentages in population findings use successfully processed reports only as the denominator.

Reviewer support for suitability reports