---
title: "Review advice files against the Pt 7.7A best-interests steps"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/financial-services-regulation/review-a-sample-of-advice-files-against-the-best-interests-steps/commonwealth"
type: "task_jurisdiction_version"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A28-T1-R4-CTH"
practice_area: "Financial Services Regulation (AFSL/ASIC/credit)"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
jurisdictions: ["CTH"]
last_reviewed: "2026-09-23"
---

# Review advice files against the Pt 7.7A best-interests steps

> Check a sample of statements of advice against the s 961B–s 961H best-interests steps and produce a gap report with file references.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/financial-services-regulation/review-a-sample-of-advice-files-against-the-best-interests-steps/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 | Check a sample of statements of advice against the s 961B–s 961H best-interests steps and produce a gap report with file references. |
| What the lawyer must review | Confirm the sample is representative Check which DBFO Act 2024 (assent 9 July 2024) changes have commenced Test each flagged gap If AI wrote the advice, do an independent substantive check |
| Written for | Commonwealth |
| Applies to | [Review a sample of advice files against the best-interests steps](https://ailawframework.com/practice/financial-services-regulation/review-a-sample-of-advice-files-against-the-best-interests-steps.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 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. Verify the applicable jurisdiction and the version of each relevant law, rule or instrument in force at the material time.
3. Confirm the output against the client’s instructions and the complete relevant source material, including omissions or contradictions.
4. 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.*