Research into practice. Judgment into stewardship.
A disciplined reading path for families who govern capital. Each attributed research edition sits beside an original practical companion, with a separate passage agent for each work.
Family-office research is complemented by relevant studies of family businesses, capital markets, property and financial decisions. Each article states the setting actually studied. An application to a family office is an editorial inference, not a claim that every original study sampled family offices.
An explanation is useful only when it answers a consequential question for an accountable decision maker. This companion translates a systematic review of explainable AI in finance into an evidence contract for vendor selection, acceptance testing and ongoing review. The proposed contract separates predictive performance, explanation fidelity and operational usefulness; it has not been validated as a new intervention.
People may reject an algorithm because they expect weak performance or because they demand a different threshold before trusting it. This companion turns that distinction into an onboarding and evaluation protocol that seeks warranted reliance rather than higher adoption. The protocol preserves human responsibility and evaluates expectations and reliance separately.
During market stress, an urgent transaction can reflect a genuine cash need, a changed investment thesis or an untested reaction. This companion proposes a crisis decision record that makes those reasons inspectable without imposing a blanket hold-or-sell rule. It draws on evidence linking overconfidence and reported panic selling in Japan.
A family office should not equate digital comfort with financial understanding or infer a person’s needs from age or gender. This companion proposes an onboarding process that separately tests usefulness, usability and comprehension. It draws on a study of robo-advisor acceptance while preserving the limits of a small, highly educated sample.
Phishing protection should test a person’s verification process rather than presume vulnerability from age. This companion proposes a consent-based rehearsal using fictional messages and safe credentials, grounded in research on suspiciousness and executive functioning. It distinguishes recognizing a suspicious message from preventing an actual financial loss.
A low number of reported scams can coexist with serious losses or repeated victimization. This companion proposes a harm-oriented fraud review for family offices, separating exposure, reporting, loss, recurrence and recovery. It draws on a probability-sample study while avoiding demographic risk labels for individual family members.
A protective message can increase awareness while making everyday life feel unsafe. This companion proposes evaluating fraud-prevention communication for both useful protective behavior and unintended fear. It draws on research with older adults and keeps support, autonomy and financial controls distinct.
Mark Button; David Shepherd; Chloe Hawkins; Jacki Tapley
Crime Prevention and Community Safety · 2024-10-23
Provides an actionable distribution and follow-up system for family protection, including people who are isolated or do not routinely use digital channels.
A family office can produce excellent fraud guidance that never reaches the person who needs it. This companion proposes a delivery register, consent-based trusted contacts and practical teach-back to close that gap. It treats channel preference as a design input rather than proof that a particular communication prevents loss.
Provides a structured follow-through process for family-enterprise retirement education and transitions, with economic constraints kept distinct from motivation.
Retirement planning is a process that must survive competing demands, not a document completed once. This companion proposes a ninety-day review for family-enterprise employees and participating family members, separating knowledge, confidence, economic constraints and completed actions. It draws on a longitudinal Spanish worker study without importing its findings as individualized advice.
Tomasz Szopiński; Michał Buszko; Małgorzata Porada-Rochoń
PLOS One · 2026-03-19
Supports a carefully bounded AI financial-learning service for beneficiaries and next-generation family members without conflating engagement with competence.
Positive attitudes toward an AI assistant are not evidence that it improves financial judgment. This companion proposes a limited learning pilot that measures comprehension, source checking and appropriate escalation alongside adoption. It uses a study of consumer acceptance to distinguish a service people like from a service they can use responsibly.
Elisabeth Carter; Vasileios Karagiannopoulos; Annie Kirby; Mark Button
Security Journal · 2026-10-15
Informs respectful incident disclosure, cross-generational support and practical fraud learning without assigning blame or overriding decision-making authority.
How a family responds to suspected fraud can determine whether the affected person shares the next warning sign. This companion proposes a nonjudgmental disclosure and learning protocol grounded in qualitative research on older adults’ perceptions. It protects autonomy, distinguishes support from authority and keeps causal claims within the source’s limits.
Helps offices challenge a vendor’s customer segmentation claims and protect beneficiaries from propensity scores being mistaken for sound financial recommendations.
A model that predicts who will accept a digital financial service does not establish who should use it. This companion develops a purpose-limited audit for family offices evaluating predictive targeting by banks or technology vendors. It separates marketing propensity, informed consent, appropriateness and observed outcomes.
This expansion has added 208 works toward the requested 4,000: 2,000 source editions and 2,000 practical companions. The 104 works already in the journal are excluded from that target.
5.2% of the requested expansion published.
Article-specific license, metadata and source checks are recorded separately from human peer review. New practical companions are AI-assisted editorial analyses; no independent human peer-review acceptance is asserted. Recorded independent human acceptance for the new companions: 0. Source authors, original journals, publication dates and existing DOIs remain unchanged.
1,778 further metadata-screened leads are retained for investigation. Potential sources only. Publisher/version rights, full text, quality, retraction and related-version checks remain to be completed. They do not count as published articles or agents.
Checked DOI, source-version DOI and normalized title in available repository catalogs. Live submissions and all earlier review queues were not fully available; platform-wide novelty is not claimed.