The review should start with the right questions already prepared.
OGAD (Off Grid AI Desktop) can help you organise supplied client notes and documents into a review agenda using a local model. Put the relevant files in a Project, ask for decisions and unresolved questions, then check every source. The result is preparation material for your review, not verified financial analysis or a recommendation about what the client should do.
| Download OGAD | Desktop releases |
What would you like to do with Off Grid AI?
Have a feature or use case you would like us to support? Tell us what you want to do and which device you use.
Write to support@offgridmobileai.co, join our Slack community, or talk to us on Reddit.
What should the preparation produce?
Aim for a short agenda with evidence behind each item. You want to enter the meeting knowing which documents are current, what was decided previously and what still needs clarification.
A useful output has three parts:
- Decisions to confirm against the latest source.
- Missing or unclear information to request.
- Questions that need the client’s explanation.
This is a bounded task for AI. You can inspect whether a note contains a commitment or whether two files use different reporting periods. You remain responsible for interpreting the financial information and checking figures in the original records.
For a fractional finance practice, the benefit is having the source material organised before the conversation begins.
Which documents should you include?
Choose the minimum set needed for the review. A previous meeting note, the current draft pack and a list of outstanding information requests may be enough for a first pass.
| Source | What to identify before adding it |
|---|---|
| Previous meeting notes | Date, decisions and people responsible |
| Current draft report | Version, reporting period and draft status |
| Client questions | Who asked and what they need clarified |
| Supporting explanation | The issue or figure it explains |
| Outstanding-items list | Which entries are still open according to a dated source |
Keep file versions clear. If two documents cover different months, that difference should be visible before the model compares them. Do not label the older one “wrong” solely because it contains different figures.
Use supported readable files. If a scanned page cannot be extracted accurately, correct the input or supply the relevant text before relying on a generated agenda.
How do you prepare a local project?
Use this setup for the client review:
- Open Models > Text. Download and load a compatible local text model.
- Open Projects > New project, enter a clear name and press Enter.
- Open Knowledge & settings > Knowledge base > Add files. Select the supported notes and documents for this project.
- Wait for indexing to finish. Check the Knowledge base list and keep the intended files enabled for retrieval.
- If Include captured memory is available, turn it OFF and select Save. This keeps broader captured work out of this supplied-document workflow.
- Open Chats > New chat within the project and ask the first question.
The captured-memory control appears with Pro. In the core project workflow, that additional source option is not offered.
Projects is a core desktop workflow. You do not need to enable screen capture or automatic meeting recording for this method. Those Pro capabilities can supply different kinds of context on supported platforms, but this article starts with files you deliberately choose.
The project knowledge tool retrieves relevant documents and conversations from the active project. Check that scope before asking the question. Project retrieval implementation.
For an offline preparation session, complete downloads and document setup first. Use the local model and avoid web or remote-provider tools in this workflow.
What should you ask first?
Begin with the Knowledge base list in Knowledge & settings. Check that every intended source file is listed, indexed and enabled. Use this list to establish the file inventory; model retrieval selects relevant passages and is not an exhaustive file audit.
From the retrieved sources for this review, identify each document’s title, period, version or date when available, and whether it calls itself draft or final. Cite the source. Do not infer approval from the filename alone.
Compare that answer with the Knowledge base list. If a file is missing from the answer, ask about it by name and inspect it directly. Absence from a generated answer does not prove that the file or a fact is absent.
Then ask:
Prepare a review agenda using these documents. Separate prior decisions, information still requested and questions to discuss. Cite the source for each item. Do not give financial recommendations or treat draft figures as confirmed.
A useful answer gives you something specific to verify. “Discuss performance” is too broad. “Confirm which reporting period the revised schedule covers” is a question you can take into a meeting.
What does a practical example look like?
Suppose the previous note says the client will provide an updated sales export. A later email note says an export was sent, but does not state its date range. The draft report is labelled for September.
The agenda should surface a question such as: “Confirm whether the supplied export covers the reporting period used in the September draft.” It should cite the two notes. It should not assume the export is correct, conclude that sales changed or invent a numerical impact.
Ask for a preparation table:
| Agenda item | Source evidence | What remains to confirm |
|---|---|---|
| Reporting input | Earlier request and later delivery note | Period and version of the supplied export |
| Draft status | Report title and document label | Whether a later approved version exists |
| Follow-up ownership | Named commitment in meeting notes | Whether that commitment is still open |
This structure helps the client answer the question without first untangling where it came from.
How do you check figures and interpretations?
Use the original source document or system for every material figure. Check units, currency, period, signs and whether the amount is actual, budgeted or forecast. A model can repeat a number incorrectly or combine values that should stay separate.
Keep calculation and professional judgement outside the generated agenda unless you perform and verify those steps yourself. If the model produces an interpretation you did not request, remove it or turn it into an open question supported by the source.
For example, replace an unsupported conclusion about a cost increase with: “Ask the client to explain the change described in the draft note.” The question preserves the uncertainty instead of making the meeting begin from a false premise.
What if the documents disagree?
Ask the model to show the disagreement with both sources. Do not ask it to silently choose the more convenient value or assume the newest filename is authoritative.
Useful wording is:
Show conflicting statements side by side. Include each source date and label. Leave the conflict unresolved unless a source explicitly explains the correction.
You can then decide what to ask the client or check in the underlying records. This is one of the most useful preparation results: a short list of issues that deserve attention before anyone relies on the draft.
How do you finish the preparation?
Review the agenda, remove duplicate questions and put the most important unresolved items first. Keep source references in your working copy so you can open them during the meeting.
After the review, save a dated note with confirmed answers and new commitments. Distinguish what the client stated from your own follow-up analysis. That note becomes a clearer starting point for the next review.
Try OGAD with one small set of private review materials you are authorised to use. Ask for a source-backed agenda, then check it before the client meeting.