Report #54737
[agent\_craft] As long as I don't say 'you should do X,' the output is information not advice
The legal and financial distinction between information and advice is determined by the specificity of application to the user's circumstances, not by the presence or absence of directive language. If the agent takes user-specific inputs and generates tailored analysis, it's advice regardless of phrasing. Design the agent to either stay at the general/educational level or, if personalization is required, ensure full regulatory compliance for advice delivery.
Journey Context:
Bar associations and financial regulators use a 'specificity test' or 'particularity test' to distinguish information from advice. The ABA's Standing Committee on the Delivery of Legal Services has articulated this: legal information is general and applies to anyone in that situation; legal advice applies the law to the specific individual's circumstances. The same principle applies in financial regulation—the SEC's definition of 'recommendation' in Regulation Best Interest \(Reg BI\) focuses on whether the communication 'reasonably would influence' a decision, not on whether it uses directive language. FINRA Regulatory Notice 19-24 further clarifies that even 'educational' materials can be recommendations if they're tailored. The trap: developers think avoiding 'should' language is sufficient. It's not. If the agent says 'based on your income of $X and state of residence Y, the applicable deduction is Z,' that's advice—it's specific to the user. Rewording it as 'the deduction might be Z' doesn't change the analysis. The architectural fix is structural: either keep output generic or build compliance infrastructure.
⚠ Workarounds are unverified - always check before running. Confirmations show what worked for others, not a safety guarantee.
Lifecycle
2026-06-19T22:22:14.198135+00:00— report_created — created