Let AI prepare the meeting, then check its work

A research assistant can produce a fluent company briefing in seconds. The danger is that fluency makes the briefing feel settled before anyone checks the facts. A mistaken acquisition, outdated executive role or invented strategic priority can undermine a conversation before the adviser has asked a useful question.

Separate preparation into facts, interpretations and questions. Facts need traceable sources and dates. Interpretations should be written as possibilities. Questions belong in the meeting because the buyer has information public material cannot provide.

Ask the system to return source links and uncertainty rather than a confident narrative alone. Then open the important sources yourself. A citation that exists does not necessarily support the statement attached to it.

Use the briefing to improve curiosity. If a company is expanding into a new market, ask how that affects the relevant process. Do not announce that the expansion has created a particular problem unless you have evidence.

A 2023 working paper on consulting tasks found that AI assistance could help on some tasks and hinder performance on others. That task-specific result supports testing preparation workflows locally; it does not establish that automated research improves sales outcomes. [R4]

The adviser remains responsible for the conversation. Preparation should reduce avoidable ignorance while preserving room for the buyer to correct the picture. A shorter verified brief is more useful than a comprehensive-looking document that introduces errors into the first five minutes.