Margaret Ellison, advisor (synthetic persona)Senior advisor, founder and executive practice, New YorkAbout $820M across 183 households; four relationships above $50M; 7 of those households are in this prototypeWho's who

Why this client

Abernathy: 38% of wealth in one inherited stock; the family's rule is 30%

Why this client

Abernathy is number 6 of 11 on today's list: score 70.3 = materiality 74 × over a limit weight 0.95 (firm default). Flagged on: Concentration 38% against 30%, up from 31% in 90 days; Inherited utility holding, $7.41M, all long-term lots; Family rule: at most 30% in one name. 3 passages from 1 document support it; 1 source disagrees, shown below.

See the options

Materiality comes from the agent that raised the item; the weight is yours to tune on Today's list. The ranking and the relevance scores are arithmetic, and a model never reorders either.

Cited passages, from 1 document

Related, not cited

Sources in conflict

Past review date

Why it was flagged

Over a limit

LimitConcentration 38% against 30%, up from 31% in 90 days
ClientAbernathy household
HoldingInherited utility holding, $7.41M, all long-term lots
Client ruleFamily rule: at most 30% in one name

Cited evidence, ranked

Staged sales that realise short-term gains carry a higher tax cost than sales of lots held longer than one year.
Managing single-name concentration, passage p2prototype corpus, day 3
Relevance 0.44="one" +0.04"concentration" +0.03"term" +0.05"lots" +0.05"name" +0.03Cited by the opportunity record +0.25
Concentration above a household's policy threshold can be reduced through staged sales under an existing trading plan, an exchange fund, or hedging, each with different tax and liquidity costs.
Managing single-name concentration, passage p1prototype corpus, day 3
Relevance 0.34="concentration" +0.03"household" +0.03"name" +0.03Cited by the opportunity record +0.25
A trading plan on its own does not restore a household to its policy threshold. It schedules sales, and the position stays above policy until they complete.
Managing single-name concentration, passage p3prototype corpus, day 3
Relevance 0.34="concentration" +0.03"household" +0.03"name" +0.03Cited by the opportunity record +0.25

How relevance is scored, and where a model would sit

The query is the opportunity as the record states it: its title, class, strategy, action and reason path, and nothing more. Each passage's score is the share of the query's weight it covers, where a rarer term across the corpus counts for more and a term the corpus has never seen counts as its rarest, plus 0.25 when the record cites the document, halved when the document is past its review date. The floor is 0.20. In production a model rewrites the query and reranks the candidates; the floor, the citation requirement, the exclusion of superseded documents and the refusal stay in code, so a verdict never depends on a model's prose.

Sources that disagree

Two current documents disagree: concentration plan suffices

Concentrated positions under a trading plan is past the review date. The newer document is more likely to be current, but nothing here has been withdrawn, so both stand until a desk resolves it.

no: a trading plan schedules sales and the breach stands until they complete

Managing single-name concentrationday 3CurrentNewer

yes: the plan is the mitigation and no further action is required

Concentrated positions under a trading planday -45Past review date

Relay shows both and applies neither. The advisor, or the desk that owns the older document, resolves it.

What the query matched

concentration3 passages
name3 passages
household2 passages
lots1 passage
one1 passage
term1 passage
41mnone
abernathynone

What the team already knows

Meeting, 200 days ago: Annual review; H. reluctant to sell any of the inherited holding
Client service associate, 15 days ago: Two calls unreturned this month. D. Abernathy's assistant says they are travelling until next week.

Full briefing, with what could not be established

Client picture · Options · Documents