What clients are told

The assistance statement

Any report, valuation, recommendation or written communication to which a registered system contributed carries an assistance statement. The wording is fixed by the Ethics & Technology Council. The same wording is used for the smallest mandate the group accepts and for the largest relationship it holds.

The statement is written to be read rather than to satisfy a lawyer. It names the class of system, what the system did, what a person did afterwards and who is accountable for the result. It appears on the document itself and never in a notice at the back of a reporting pack.

In the twelve months to 30 June 2026 the statement appeared on 2,140 client outputs, across the 61 family relationships and every institutional mandate. Where no system contributed, no statement appears, and the absence is as reliable a signal as the presence.

• The class of system that contributed, in the same terms the register uses.
• What the system produced and what a person did with it afterwards.
• The name and role of the person accountable for the content.
• The date of the approval under which the system was used.

The record behind the statement

A client may ask for an extract from the artificial intelligence register covering any approved use that touched their mandate. The extract names the class, the purpose, the accountable executive, the categories and origin of the data, the inferences the system is forbidden to draw and the date of the last approval.

The extract excludes another client's data, the parameters of a model and anything that would allow a third party to reconstruct a proprietary method. Those exclusions are stated on the extract itself, so a client can see what has been withheld and ask why it was withheld.

Nine clients requested twelve extracts in the twelve months to 30 June 2026 and each was issued within ten business days. Six requests came from institutions applying their own governance rules to the group, and three came from family principals who had read the annual report on the Charter.

Requiring a person

Any client may require that a decision affecting their mandate be reviewed by a named person who did not take it. The right does not depend on showing that a system was involved and it does not depend on the value at stake. It is exercised through the client team or at compliance@iguako.tech.

The reviewer is senior to the original decision maker and independent of the desk that took the decision. It concludes inside ten business days and the client receives the reasons in writing. Eight requests were made in the twelve months to 30 June 2026: five on valuations, two on screening outcomes and one on a research recommendation.

Two of those eight decisions were changed on review. A client may also instruct the group to take future decisions on a mandate without system assistance of any kind. Three mandates carried that standing instruction at 30 June 2026, recorded in the register so that it survives a change of client team.

Plain language, and no persuasion by design

Client documents state what a figure is, how it was reached and what would change it. Where an estimate carries a range, the range is shown. Where a valuation rests on an assumption a reasonable person could dispute, the assumption is named in the document rather than left inside a model.

The group does not use urgency, scarcity or default settings to move a client towards a decision. No consent is pre-selected, no option is bundled with another and no communication treats silence as agreement. A client who wants more time is given it, and a client who declines is not asked again in the same quarter.

The annual report, including the refusals

The Ethics & Technology Council publishes an annual report on the Charter alongside the group annual review. It states the reviews conducted, the approvals granted, the proposals refused, the incidents recorded, the requests for a human decision, the welfare assessments completed and the personal data breaches notified.

The refusals are the part that makes the rest legible. A report listing approvals alone would describe an appetite rather than a control. The Board approves the report before publication, and the independent directors see the register, the incident log and the internal audit findings before they approve it.

Clients and counterparties may put questions on the report to compliance@iguako.tech. A complaint about a decision a system assisted follows the complaints procedure on the same timetable as any other complaint. Eleven questions were received on the report published in 2025 and each was answered in writing.