RBC WEALTH MANAGEMENT
9:41
● ● ● ▰
WEALTH MANAGEMENT
Recipient details
These details don't match
Check required
The receiving bank returned a different account name.
Entered name
Harbour & Finch Ltd
Name returned by the receiving bank
Harbour & Finch Holdings Ltd
These names differ. Edit the recipient, or contact the relationship team if the details need further checks.
Edit recipient details
Contact relationship manager
9:41
● ● ● ▰
WEALTH MANAGEMENT
Payments
Good afternoon
Your payments
AVAILABLE TO SEND
£284,320.55
Sterling Current •• 5821
RECENT ACTIVITY
Harbour & Finch Ltd
Completed · 19 October
− £6,750.00
YOUR PAYMENT ASSISTANT
Prepared from your history
£24,800.00
Harbour & Finch Ltd
From Sterling Current •• 5821
SUGGESTED · NOT SENT
Review prepared draft
PRODUCT DESIGN / LAUNCHED AI-ASSISTED PAYMENTS
Instruct it yourself.
We still hold the controls.
The intelligence makes the experience simpler.
The controls establish what is allowed to happen.
I designed an AI-assisted experience that moved the instruction into the client’s hands, without moving the bank’s authority with it.
Clients could begin from history, their own words or an invoice, or involve their relationship team. The instruction stayed reviewable, and the bank’s checks stayed in place.
LAUNCHED SERVICE
HIGH-NET-WORTH CLIENTS
BEFORE
AFTER
STATUS
A payment began with an email or telephone call.
Clients could initiate and review payments directly, with the bank’s checks and relationship-manager support in the same experience.
Launched to high-net-worth clients.
1 / THE PROBLEM
The relationship manager
was the interface.
THE DESIGN CHALLENGE
Starting an instruction must never bypass the bank’s checks.
The client needed freedom to begin, inspect and correct an instruction. The bank needed to retain the ability to verify, hold or stop it.
THE CORE CONSTRAINT
Make client autonomy compatible with private-banking trust.
Paying someone meant a conversation. The client explained what they wanted. Their relationship manager translated the request into an instruction, established what was missing and progressed the payment.
That personal service was valuable, especially when a payment needed judgement. But it was also the starting point for routine instructions that clients already understood.
A conventional form would have digitised the data entry without fundamentally changing that experience.
An unconstrained AI assistant presented the opposite risk: appearing to understand an instruction well enough to act when important details remained uncertain.
2 / THE MODEL
The assistant is already there.
The experience begins with context, not an empty form or a chatbot. Where history supports it, the assistant prepares a familiar instruction: recipient, amount and account already populated, clearly labelled as a suggestion. Nothing sent.
2 / SIX WAYS IN
Six ways in. One controlled experience.
Open payments to find a prepared draft, instruct the assistant in your own words, use an invoice or start from an existing relationship. The relationship manager remains available without a restart.
1 PREPARED DRAFT
Accept the usual payment
History-backed and labelled as a suggestion
2 VOICE
Speak naturally
Interpret payee, amount, account, date and reference
3 TYPE
Use your own words
One clarification at a time; existing data stays put
4 DOCUMENT
Photograph an invoice
Read fields and compare supplier account details
5 KNOWN CONTEXT
Saved payee or own account
Pre-fill from history; client confirms
6 WHITE-GLOVE
Hand over securely
Assistant prepares the RM brief; no re-explaining
1–5 → Structured, editable draft · Nothing has been sent
6 → Secure adviser hand-off
The assistant stays available throughout; the bank’s checks run on every route, including adviser-prepared instructions.
The same safeguards apply when an adviser prepares the instruction. If human judgement is needed, the client and relationship team retain the context.
3 / THREE DEFINING MOMENTS
Where the design earns trust.
Each moment is a decision about how the assistant should behave — and where the bank’s authority must remain unmistakable.
MOMENT 1 / INTENT AND INTERPRETATION
The assistant removes work
without removing control.
9:41
● ● ● ▰
WEALTH MANAGEMENT
Payments
Good afternoon
Your payments
AVAILABLE TO SEND
£284,320.55
Sterling Current •• 5821
RECENT ACTIVITY
Harbour & Finch Ltd
Completed · 19 October
− £6,750.00
YOUR PAYMENT ASSISTANT
Prepared from your history
£24,800.00
Harbour & Finch Ltd
From Sterling Current •• 5821
SUGGESTED · NOT SENT
Review prepared draft
9:41
● ● ● ▰
WEALTH MANAGEMENT
Payments / Your instruction
Your instruction
Speak or type naturally. You can edit any detail before approval.
YOUR INSTRUCTION
Pay £24,800 to Harbour & Finch next Thursday from my sterling account.
Nothing has been sent
Review and change any detail before authorising.
Review draft
WHAT THE ASSISTANT UNDERSTOOD
PAYEE
Harbour & Finch Ltd
AMOUNT
£24,800.00
DATE
Next Thursday
ACCOUNT
Sterling Current •• 5821
A client opens payments and finds an instruction already prepared from their history. Or they simply say:
“Pay £24,800 to Harbour & Finch next Thursday.”
The assistant interprets the request into recipient, amount, account, date and reference. The original words stay visible, with the interpreted fields underneath.
If a detail is missing, the assistant asks one question and preserves everything else. The client corrects an interpretation, rather than starting a form again.
ASSISTANT PRESENT ON HOME
MY DESIGN DECISION
I kept suggested information visibly distinct from client-confirmed information.
A prepared draft is not an approved instruction. The original request stays visible, every field remains editable and nothing is sent simply because the assistant understands what the client wants.
INTERPRETED, EDITABLE DETAILS
MOMENT 2 / DISCREPANCY AND VERIFICATION
Make uncertainty visible.
Never turn it into permission.
9:41
● ● ● ▰
WEALTH MANAGEMENT
Payments / Invoice review
These account details have changed
The assistant compared this invoice with previous payments to the same supplier.
ACCOUNT DETAILS DIFFER
Harbour & Finch Ltd
FROM THIS INVOICE
Account ending •• 9142
PREVIOUSLY USED
Account ending •• 7719
Please verify the bank details independently.
Edit recipient account
Ask relationship team
9:41
● ● ● ▰
WEALTH MANAGEMENT
Recipient details
These details don't match
Check required
The receiving bank returned a different account name.
Entered name
Harbour & Finch Ltd
Name returned by the receiving bank
Harbour & Finch Holdings Ltd
These names differ. Edit the recipient, or contact the relationship team if the details need further checks.
Edit recipient details
Contact relationship manager
An invoice arrives with account details different from previous payments to the same supplier. The assistant identifies that difference and brings it forward — not as a score, but as a clear explanation of what has changed.
Confirmation of Payee independently checks the recipient. If the bank returns a different name, the interface shows both the entered name and the returned name. Editing is primary.
Where continuation is permitted, the secondary route requires stepped-up verification. If an account cannot be confirmed, there is no continue.
INVOICE ACCOUNT DIFFERENCE
BOTH NAMES / EDIT FIRST
MY DESIGN DECISION
I designed distinct interactions for uncertainty, discrepancy and invalid account information — not one generic warning.
EXPLAIN
What changed, in plain language
VERIFY
Edit first; step-up only where permitted
STOP
Unconfirmed account: no continue
The assistant may explain a result or suggest a correction. It cannot declare an account valid or override the bank’s decision.
MOMENT 3 / PROTECTION AND HUMAN CONTINUITY
A stop is part of
the service.
9:41
● ● ● ▰
WEALTH MANAGEMENT
Additional security
Pause this payment
A new recipient and a live call require extra caution.
DO NOT CONTINUE
Are you on a call with someone asking you to make a payment to a new recipient?
End the call before paying. Then verify again, queue for your relationship team or cancel.
PAUSED · No money has been sent.
The instruction cannot continue while the call is active.
I have ended the call
Queue for relationship team
Cancel instruction
9:41
● ● ● ▰
WEALTH MANAGEMENT
Payments / Relationship team
Your team has the context
The assistant has prepared a secure summary so you do not need to explain the payment again.
ASSISTANT SUMMARY
WHAT YOU INSTRUCTED
£24,800 to Harbour & Finch Ltd
CHECKS COMPLETED
Recipient verification and session checks
WHAT NEEDS ATTENTION
New recipient and invoice account change
Account details remain in RBC secure channels.
Send secure briefing
A client attempts to pay a new recipient while on a telephone call. The instruction pauses, explains why and presents three controlled choices: end the call and undergo the necessary checks, queue the instruction for the relationship team, or cancel.
There is no shortcut that dismisses the protection while the risk remains.
When the team becomes involved, the assistant prepares a secure briefing: what was instructed, which checks ran, what remains unresolved and the current status. The client does not explain everything again.
PAUSE / REVERIFY, QUEUE OR CANCEL
RM BRIEF / CONTEXT RETAINED
MY DESIGN DECISION
I designed the interruption and recovery as one experience.
A stop should feel like the bank protecting the relationship, not the app abandoning the client. The ability to reach a person without losing context was as important as independently completing a routine payment.
4 / EXPLORE THE COMPLETE DECISION SYSTEM
Explore the full architecture.
The Flow Explorer connects each design decision to the underlying payment architecture and corresponding mobile interface.
Swipe or scroll across the diagram to inspect each decision.
1 / ENTRY & INTENT
Start with the request
The assistant is already there
Launched source: RBC payment-flow v2 · focused excerpt
Assistant present from the start
Prepared draft
History-backed
Speak
Voice instruction
Type
Natural language
Invoice
Photograph / forward
Saved / own
Existing context
Team
Human judgement
AI interprets, extracts and suggests
Asks one question if something is missing
Secure relationship-team brief
No client re-explanation
Structured draft · Client edits · Nothing sent
LINKED PRODUCT EVIDENCE
THE DESIGN DECISION
The assistant starts with history, keeps original words or invoices visible, and asks one question when something is missing.
AI ROLE / INTENT
The assistant starts with history, interprets speech or text, extracts invoice details and asks only what is missing.
9:41
● ● ● ▰
WEALTH MANAGEMENT
Payments / Your assistant
Ready when you are
Your assistant has prepared what you usually pay. Review or start a different instruction.
SUGGESTED FROM YOUR HISTORY
£24,800.00
Harbour & Finch Ltd
From Sterling Current •• 5821
Usually the first Thursday
SUGGESTED · NOT SENT
OR BEGIN ANOTHER WAY
Speak · Type · Scan an invoice
Saved payee · Own account · Your team
Review suggested draft
Swipe or scroll across the diagram to inspect each decision.
2 / PAYEE CHECKS
Verify who receives the payment
CoP, invoice history and beneficiary confirmation are independent checks that the assistant explains in plain language.
Editable draft
New payee while on a call?
Stop and contact team
Confirmation of Payee
Receiving bank result?
Match: show returned name
Mismatch: show both; edit
Cannot confirm: no continue
Launched source: RBC payment-flow v2 · focused excerpt
LINKED PRODUCT EVIDENCE
9:41
● ● ● ▰
WEALTH MANAGEMENT
Recipient details
These details don't match
Check required
The receiving bank returned a different account name.
Entered name
Harbour & Finch Ltd
Name returned by the receiving bank
Harbour & Finch Holdings Ltd
These names differ. Edit the recipient, or contact the relationship team if the details need further checks.
Edit recipient details
Contact relationship manager
THE DESIGN DECISION
AI explains invoice discrepancies and payee mismatches; CoP remains a bank result. Client edits and explicitly accepts any suggested correction.
BANK CHECK / NOT AI
Confirmation of Payee is an independent bank result. AI cannot declare a payee valid.
Swipe or scroll across the diagram to inspect each decision.
3 / FRAUD
Stop the dangerous instruction
Silent security, useful interventions
New payee + live call?
Yes: pause instruction
No: continue CoP checks
Payment stopped
Relationship manager hand-off
Secure reference; no account details by email
Launched source: RBC payment-flow v2 · focused excerpt
LINKED PRODUCT EVIDENCE
THE DESIGN DECISION
New payee on a call: pause. Voice or behaviour mismatch: verify or stop. Sanctions or high-risk hold: the relationship team takes it.
CONTROL / HARD STOP
Live on-call protection, invoice and device signals, and behavioural risk can trigger a pause, step-up or a secure adviser hand-off.
9:41
● ● ● ▰
WEALTH MANAGEMENT
Payments / Security
An extra check is needed
This instruction is different from your usual voice or device activity.
SECURITY CHECK
Let’s verify this instruction
We have noticed an unusual signal in this session. Your payment has not been submitted.
This is a routine safeguard for your account.
Your relationship team can help if verification is not possible.
Verify another way
Contact relationship team
Swipe or scroll across the diagram to inspect each decision.
Risk-based authorisation and mandates
Keep authority explicit
Review is explicit, authentication is sized to the risk, and payments above mandate thresholds are held for a second approver.
At or above approval threshold?
Held for second approver; fee visible
Review amount, payee, source, date and fee
Status: held
Strong customer authentication
Instruction received with reference
Launched source: RBC payment-flow v2 · focused excerpt
LINKED PRODUCT EVIDENCE
9:41
● ● ● ▰
WEALTH MANAGEMENT
Awaiting approval
One more approval is needed
Some payment instructions may need additional authorisation under the account mandate.
STATUS
HELD
Your authorisation
Completed
Additional signatory
Awaiting second approval
PAYMENT
£24,800.00 to Harbour & Finch Ltd
Payment fee: £0.00
Status: held. The payment is awaiting a second approver. You will be notified when the status changes.
Track instruction
THE DESIGN DECISION
Maker-checker, risk-based SCA and idempotent retry ensure authority is respected, with no success state before authorisation.
CONTROL / CONSENT
Risk-based authentication, mandate thresholds and maker-checker approvals govern every path, including adviser-prepared drafts.
Swipe or scroll across the diagram to inspect each decision.
Intelligent aftercare and next steps
Received is not settled
The assistant offers recipient save, a standing arrangement, accountant pack, unusually large-payment note, next draft and secure RM briefing.
Instruction received + reference
In progress → settled later
Optional aftercare
Offer recurring; same controls
Tax review tag; no advice
RM brief; checks and status
Instruction complete
Launched source: RBC payment-flow v2 · focused excerpt
LINKED PRODUCT EVIDENCE
9:41
● ● ● ▰
WEALTH MANAGEMENT
Instruction received
What happens next?
Your instruction is in progress. These actions are optional.
PAYMENT REFERENCE
RB-PAY-10482
Make this recurring
The same payment checks will apply.
›
Tag for tax review
Organise records. This is not tax advice.
›
Involve the relationship team
Share the instruction, checks and current status.
›
Done
THE DESIGN DECISION
Aftercare stays client-directed; standing arrangements reuse all checks, and instruction received never means settled.
AI / OPTIONAL SUGGESTIONS
The assistant supports standing arrangements, accountant packs, unusual-payment notes and the next draft. The client chooses.
AI interprets. RBC verifies. Clients authorise.
5 / KNOWING WHEN NOT TO INTERVENE
The restraint is the design.
Most of the security system is deliberately invisible. The assistant stays available, banking checks operate throughout and the interface changes only when a finding matters.
Sometimes that means clarification. Sometimes stronger authentication, a private advisory, a second approver or a stop.
PATTERNS I DESIGNED AGAINST
NO CHATBOT NARRATION
The instruction is the interface
NO CONFIDENCE SCORES
Explain findings, not numbers
NO SILENT CORRECTIONS
The client accepts changes
NO ADVICE IN PAYMENTS
Keep advice separate
NO FALSE SUCCESS
Received is not settled
The assistant can prepare, suggest, compare, explain and hand over.
It cannot override banking controls or authorise on the client’s behalf.
6 / WHY THIS IS A WEALTH-MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE
The relationship is part of the product.
High-net-worth clients need independence for familiar transactions and confidence that someone can intervene when a payment becomes unusual, sensitive or complex.
INDEPENDENCE
Self-service where the client already knows what they want.
DISCREET PROTECTION
Safeguards that surface only when circumstances change.
PERSONAL CONTINUITY
A person without requiring the client to begin again.
The objective wasn’t to remove the relationship manager. It was to make that relationship available where it adds the most value.
7 / MY CONTRIBUTION
The service model, not just the screens.
I designed the service model, payment journey architecture and client-facing interaction experience.
MY DESIGN RESPONSIBILITY
Service architecture
Six entry routes; assistant present throughout
Interaction logic
Suggestions, interpretation, verification and correction
Recovery and continuity
Stops, approvals, human hand-off and status
RBC’S UNDERLYING CONTROLS
CoP, fraud controls, authentication and approval mandates.
That included bringing six entry routes into one coherent journey; defining how the assistant presents extracted, suggested and confirmed information; designing the transitions between routine payments and security interventions; and resolving the critical exception, authorisation and recovery states.
I also designed how the relationship-manager hand-off would preserve the instruction, its checks and its context.
MY DESIGN RESPONSIBILITY
Making banking controls understandable, appropriately timed and actionable — without asking clients to understand the machinery behind them.
8 / THE OUTCOME
Launched. Client-directed.
Still unmistakably private banking.
RBC Wealth Management launched an AI-assisted payment experience for high-net-worth clients who previously relied on telephone and email instructions through their relationship managers.
Clients could begin from a prepared draft or their own words, inspect and correct the assistant’s interpretation, and authorise within the bank’s controls. Where attention was needed, the service could explain the issue, apply safeguards or involve the relationship team with context intact.
The relationship manager was no longer the only way in.
They remained there when their judgement mattered.
PORTFOLIO NOTE
The launched experience is presented using fictional client names, amounts, account details and references. No adoption, time-saving or call-reduction metrics are claimed without supporting evidence.
MATT WOODS / PRODUCT & SERVICE DESIGN
RBC WEALTH MANAGEMENT / AI-ASSISTED PAYMENTS