Describe the task
When the technical position is not obvious and the guidance points in different directions, attach the HMRC manuals, case law summaries, and ICAEW technical notes. Ask the workflow for the argument structure. Clusters by position, tension lines where views disagree, blind spots per camp. A reading of the debate to test against your own before committing to the advice.
Give the workflow context
An AI workflow connected to the practice document store with the client-specific facts, prior opinions the practice has taken on similar points, and the technical subscriptions the firm pays for. It respects which views sit within the firm's risk appetite and flags any view that does not.
What the workflow creates
An inline argument map. Each source positioned by what it actually concludes, not by where it was published. Tension lines drawn where views disagree, with a one-line note on the reason. Blind spots per camp listed at the bottom. Ready to sit alongside the partner's own view as a sense-check before the opinion goes to the client.
Follow-up prompts
- Draft the advice letter in our house voice, citing the two sources most relevant to the client's facts.
- Show me the contrary view one more time, with the case law it relies on. I want to be sure we have tested it.
- Save the map as the record of why we took this view. Include it in the client file cross-referenced to the letter.
Tricks and tips
- Attach the dissenting commentary too. The map is more useful with disagreement on it than with consensus.
- Re-run the map six months later. Guidance shifts, especially on points HMRC has flagged for clarification.
- Use the map as the record of why we took this view. When HMRC queries the position two years on, the reasoning trail is already on the file.