In finance, you own what you put your name on. The brief, the number, the recommendation. If it's wrong, "the AI said so" is not a defense anyone accepts. So the question that matters about any AI output isn't whether it sounds right. It's whether you can trust where it came from.
Here's a small instruction that changes everything. Tell it to flag anything it can't verify rather than guessing.
I do this on every brief. The result comes back with the work, and then a short section of flags. Market cap rankings move daily, confirm before citing. These deal figures are press estimates, not company confirmed. That's not the AI being weak. That's the AI telling me exactly where to apply my own judgment before I sign off.
Compare that to a tool that fills every gap with a confident sentence. It looks more finished. It's far more dangerous, because the thing most likely to burn you is the number that reads as certain and isn't. A visible mistake you catch. A confident fabrication you ship.
This is what governance looks like at the level of a single piece of work. Not a policy document. A habit. You direct the AI to show its seams, and it shows them. You stay the one accountable for the call, which you were always going to be anyway.
The teams that get this right don't trust AI less. They trust it in the right places. They let it do the work, and they keep the judgment about what's verified and what isn't firmly in human hands.
Ask for the flags. Then do the one thing the AI can't. Decide what to stand behind.