Impact Assessment

Clauses 6.1.4 and 8.4 assessment of consequences for clients and portfolio managers.

ImpactAssessmentISO/IEC 42001:2023v0.1.0draft

Consequences of the AI Portfolio Assistant for clients, portfolio managers and the firm, rated from affected parties' point of view and fed into risk treatment.

Clauses: 6.1.48.4A.5.2A.5.3A.5.4A.5.5

impacts (3)

unsuitable-client-tradesUnsuitable trades influenced by AI recommendations or proposals

A recommendation or order proposal that conflicts with mandate, risk limits or client preferences is accepted by a portfolio manager under time pressure, harming the client's economic position or suitability outcome.

Category: Economic
Source: Weak grounding, incomplete mandate context, or automation bias at recommend/propose levels.
Severity: High
Likelihood: Possible

pm-overreliancePortfolio manager overreliance on assistant outputs

Sustained reliance on explanations and recommendations erodes independent challenge, so the human-in-the-loop control becomes formal rather than substantive.

Category: Autonomy
Source: Automation bias under desk workload pressure.
Severity: Medium
Likelihood: Likely

firm-regulatory-impactRegulatory and conduct consequences for the firm

Failures of authority control, confidentiality or suitability create supervisory, enforcement or reputational consequences for the firm beyond the immediate client loss.

Category: Reputational
Source: Breach of authority ceiling or serious incident without timely notification.
Severity: High
Likelihood: Unlikely

consultation (2)

Item 1

Managers asked for clear authority indicators and refused any path that could submit orders without an explicit approval step.

Item 2

Compliance emphasised suitability sampling for AI-influenced recommendations and client confidentiality across portfolios.