SERVICE A / ASSESSMENT / Financial Services
Where judgment responsibility becomes unclear after generative AI adoption in financial services
A Service A assessment simulation for customer support, sales screening memos, and internal policy lookup.
This is a fictional case designed to explain Insynergy's assessment approach. It does not describe an actual client engagement, diagnostic result, or specific company situation.
ASSESSMENT RESULT
Overall score
33
Level 2: Boundary Informal
AI use has begun, but the judgment boundary is still informal.
AI use has entered business workflows, but Decision Boundaries remain local, informal, and difficult to reproduce across the organization.
SCENARIO
Assumed case
- Organization
- Financial services firm
- Scale
- Approximately 1,200 employees
- Target functions
- Contact center, sales planning, screening, compliance, IT planning
- AI use
- Generative AI for customer response support, screening memo support, and internal policy lookup
- Assessment timing
- Three months after partial production use
AI USE CASES
Where AI enters the work
Customer support
AI generates draft responses from inquiry content.
Shorter response times and more consistent response quality.
Sales screening
AI summarizes meeting notes and extracts screening issues.
Reduced memo preparation time and fewer missed issues.
Policy lookup
AI searches and summarizes internal rules and FAQ content.
Reduced lookup time and fewer internal inquiries.
OBSERVED CONCERNS
Concerns after AI enters production work
- Different staff members make different judgments about how much to edit AI response drafts.
- It is unclear whether frontline managers or business owners carry final responsibility for customer explanations.
- AI summaries are used in screening memos, but differences between AI output and human judgment are not recorded.
- AI summaries of internal policies are beginning to substitute for source policy confirmation.
DIAGNOSTIC VIEWS
What the assessment examines
AI-involved workflows
Where AI participates in work, decisions, and outputs.
Decision responsibility
Who owns final judgment, approval, and explainability when AI output is used.
Decision Boundary™
Where AI may act, where humans must review, and where humans must decide.
Decision Log / Evidence
Whether AI output, human edits, rationale, and final judgments are retained.
FINDINGS
Key findings
Finding
Impact
Finding
AI-excluded decision areas are not explicit.
Impact
AI output may influence screening or customer-disadvantage decisions too strongly.
Finding
Human review triggers are not defined.
Impact
Important cases may be handled through individual judgment.
Finding
Differences between AI drafts and final decisions are not recorded.
Impact
Audit, root-cause analysis, improvement, and training evidence are weak.
FROM ASSESSMENT TO IMPLEMENTATION
What Service B implements after assessment.
Service A identifies unclear judgment responsibility and missing evidence. Service B turns those findings into Decision Boundaries, review triggers, Decision Logs, and Boundary Governance.
Priority
Design theme
Deliverable
Priority
High
Design theme
Define AI-excluded and restricted decision areas
Deliverable
AI workflow scope list and AI-excluded decision list
Priority
High
Design theme
Design Decision Boundaries by decision type
Deliverable
Decision Boundary™ design document
Priority
High
Design theme
Standardize evidence
Deliverable
Decision Log template