---
title: "Draft or review a PDS or FSG against Part 7.9 and ASIC RG 168"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/financial-services-regulation/draft-or-review-a-product-disclosure-document-or-financial-services-guid/commonwealth"
type: "task_jurisdiction_version"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A28-T1-R6-CTH"
practice_area: "Financial Services Regulation (AFSL/ASIC/credit)"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
jurisdictions: ["CTH"]
last_reviewed: "2026-09-23"
---

# Draft or review a PDS or FSG against Part 7.9 and ASIC RG 168

> Draft a PDS or FSG from the product terms (features, risks, costs, cooling-off, disputes), or compare an existing document to RG 168 and RG 175.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/financial-services-regulation/draft-or-review-a-product-disclosure-document-or-financial-services-guid/commonwealth  
Last reviewed: 2026-09-23

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Financial Services Regulation (AFSL/ASIC/credit)](https://ailawframework.com/practice/financial-services-regulation.md) |
| Human involvement | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| How AI is used | Draft a PDS or FSG from the product terms (features, risks, costs, cooling-off, disputes), or compare an existing document to RG 168 and RG 175. |
| What the lawyer must review | Check fees against the prescribed method Make risks product-specific (ASIC's Fiducian greenwashing case, Oct 2025) Cite RG 271 and AFCA limits ($1.263m claims; $6.317m small-business credit, from 1 Jan 2024) Remember errors can create s 1022B liability |
| Written for | Commonwealth |
| Applies to | [Draft or review a product-disclosure document or financial-services guide](https://ailawframework.com/practice/financial-services-regulation/draft-or-review-a-product-disclosure-document-or-financial-services-guid.md) |

## Checking plan

**Lawyer review required**

The responsible lawyer reviews the work against the instructions, sources and intended use.

- What the AI does: Potential support includes preparing preliminary structure or wording and identifying points for review. Confirm the tool’s capability and permitted scope.
- What the lawyer does: Set the scope, verify the evidence, resolve exceptions and approve the final output for its intended use.
- Who reviews: Responsible lawyer with competence in the matter
- Basis: Suggested checking approach based on the task guidance. Complete the assessment for the actual tool, information and jurisdiction.
- Why: The plan reflects the described work and review requirements. Policy colours are not used to determine permission or checking.

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. Trace every relied-on figure to its source, confirm dates and assumptions, and independently recalculate totals or derived amounts.
2. Check the current court or regulator requirements, prescribed form and attachments for the intended document and filing.
3. Verify the applicable jurisdiction and the version of each relevant law, rule or instrument in force at the material time.
4. Confirm the output against the client’s instructions and the complete relevant source material, including omissions or contradictions.
5. Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.

## Notes

- Confirm the required checking with the responsible lawyer before work starts. The checking approach does not establish permission to use AI.

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*