Fintech: prepare for the institution review.
Your partner asks what the pilot tested and which terms still need an answer. Bring permitted product records and the full result set so the review can keep both successful and failed cases visible.
For fintechs, sponsor banks and credit unions
A pilot file both teams can review.
The fintech brings the pilot export and terms. The institution keeps the decision file, including failed cases, open terms and a named reviewer. Agree one workflow and plan two to four weeks when permitted sources and reviewers are available.
Institution: keep the file behind approval.
You have to explain whether this capability can be used in your workflow. Define the required cases, retain missing evidence and name the person responsible for acceptance.
Prepare notes before the call. Stays on this device. Nothing is submitted.
Same review. Different responsibilities.
The fintech supplies
- Permitted pilot exports, source versions and proposed use.
- Vendor terms and feature descriptions with unresolved terms retained.
- Complete evaluation records, including failures and missing cases.
- A product owner who can answer limitations and correction questions.
The institution keeps
- A one-page decision with reasons and exclusions.
- The required-case register and retained results, including failures.
- Open terms and questions assigned to accountable owners.
- A named reviewer, acceptance boundary and next actions.
Both parties agree the workflow, source permissions, review criteria and correction responsibilities before work begins. The institution owns the use decision.
Use the existing AI pilot acceptance review.
The question is whether this capability can be used for this institution workflow under this reviewed boundary. Preserve the full result set and the questions still open. A provider result or demonstration is not the institution's acceptance.
Inspect the shared review scope and deliverables. Wait, narrow, or do not buy are valid answers.
Run the bounded method in the browser, or inspect its approved-assistant routes and availability.
Agree access before sharing sources.
Agree confidentiality, source rights, the handling route and reviewer availability before supplying records. Use synthetic or properly redacted examples for the first conversation. Keep customer and member information out of public tools and ordinary email.
The institution keeps its review file. The parties agree access to supplied records and onward reuse in writing. Evidence gaps, missing reviewers and product corrections can change the two-to-four-week schedule.
A file to inspect. A decision your institution owns.
Public tools run on supplied inputs and fictional examples. An engagement uses only sources you are allowed to share. We do not connect to a core, compile or execute institution code, take a financial action, certify compliance, give a legal opinion or claim achieved savings.
Start with the institution's use decision.
Bring the decision, deadline and accountable owner in general business terms. We agree the workflow, permitted sources, review responsibilities and exclusions before work begins.
Scope and fee are fixed in writing after one working session.
Review scope and fee or email info@llmsquared.com. Do not attach confidential sources to an ordinary inquiry.