Plotbook

Free tool, no signup

The brief that says what it does not know

Name the household and the meeting context. You get the method for building a pre-meeting brief from public records, ordered and time-boxed, with the things it genuinely cannot verify named outright instead of quietly filled in.

Use only what you would say out loud to a colleague. This shapes the method; it is never looked up.

Assessor, recorder, and registry rules are state-specific, and this changes which record is worth checking first.

Only what a colleague already told you. Do not paste anything you found on a people-search site.

Describe the household generically, the way you would to a colleague. Your input is sent to our AI provider to write the method and is not used to build a profile of anyone.

Name the household and the meeting context. You will get the ordered method for building the brief, how you would confirm you have the right household, and the specific things a brief cannot verify and must leave blank.

Why this one is different

It cannot write a fact about the household

Every step is an instruction to check a named record, never a stated conclusion. A language model asked to fill in a real brief will happily invent a plausible detail about a real person. This one is structurally barred from doing that: the schema only accepts a method, not a dossier.

The dead ends list is the point, not an afterthought

A specific net worth, the reason behind a sale, anything from a paywalled people-search site: named outright as things to leave blank rather than guess at. Most AI research tools quietly skip this step because an honest gap is less satisfying than a confident guess.

The method changes with the meeting

A first meeting, a referral, a centre-of-influence introduction, and re-engaging a lapsed contact are different research problems. A referral overlap is worth checking; a lapsed contact needs what has changed since, not what was true before.

Time-boxed on purpose

Every step carries an honest minutes estimate for doing it by hand, because a pre-meeting brief that takes longer than the meeting itself has failed at its one job.

How to use it

  1. 01

    Name the household and the meeting context

    Use only what you would say out loud to a colleague. A first meeting, a referral, a centre-of-influence introduction, and re-engaging a lapsed contact each change which step is worth doing first.

  2. 02

    Add what you already know, if anything

    Who referred them, roughly what you have heard. Never paste anything from a people-search site or data broker: this shapes the method, it is not looked up.

  3. 03

    Work the method, then read the dead ends before the meeting

    Follow the steps in order and use the confirm signals before you trust a record. Read the dead ends last, because those are the questions you should not walk in pretending to have answered.

Why a filled-in brief is the wrong thing to automate

Ask a language model to write a pre-meeting brief about a named household and it will produce one. That is the problem, not the reassurance. A model has no way to say 'I don't know' by default; asked for a paragraph about a specific person, it fills every gap with the most statistically plausible detail, and a plausible detail about a real person that did not happen is not a rounding error, it is a false statement about someone you are about to sit across from.

The only fix that survives contact with a real household is structural, not a politer prompt. This tool's schema does not have a field for 'what the household is like'. It has fields for the ordered steps of a method, for how you would corroborate a record, and for what to leave blank. There is no shape in the output for the model to hide a guess inside.

What a public record can confirm before a meeting, and what it cannot

Public records are good at established facts with a paper trail: who owns a property and what it is assessed at, whether a household is tied to a business entity and under what name, what a professional licence or firm bio says in public. Each of those is checkable and each has a named office or system behind it.

They are bad, structurally, at motive, circumstance, and anything that requires an inference rather than a lookup. No public record explains why someone sold a business, what a family disagreement was about, or what a specific account balance is. A brief that states any of those did not find them in a record. It guessed, and presented the guess as research. This tool's dead ends list exists specifically to draw that line before you ever walk into the room.

Corroboration is what makes a brief trustworthy at all

A record that plausibly matches a household is not the same as a record that is confirmed to be about them, particularly for a common name. The confirm signals in this tool's output are about cross-checking, an address that shows up in two independent records, a name that matches across a registry filing and a property record, not about anything the household is or does.

One matching signal is a hypothesis. A brief built on a single unconfirmed record and presented with confidence is how research becomes an embarrassing conversation with the wrong household. Read the confirm signals before you trust anything the method turned up, not after.

What this tool does not do

  • It does not write a brief. It writes the method for building one, and it never states a fact about any household.
  • It does not look up any household, property, or record, and it returns no names, addresses, or contact details.
  • It will not state a net worth, income, account balance, or any other specific dollar figure for a household, under any circumstance.
  • It does not know your specific county's or state's website, filing system, fees, or processing times.
  • It does not cover compliance, suitability, or marketing-rule review of anything you already wrote.
  • It is not legal or investment advice, and it does not establish any fact about a real person.
  • The dead ends and confirm signals are a method, not a guarantee that a given record exists or is current in your jurisdiction.

Questions

More free tools

Liquidity Event Playbook

Pick the kind of wealth event and get the public-record trail it leaves, how long the record takes to appear, and what looks like confirmation but is not.

Open tool

Deed Entity Decoder

Paste the owner name from a deed and find out what kind of entity it is and how to reach the human behind it.

Open tool

Property Owner Search Guide

Tell it the state and what you already have. It writes the public-record route to the name on the deed.

Open tool

Stop doing this by hand

Plotbook is a map of who owns the wealth around you, with research that names the human behind an LLC or trust. Seven day trial, 100 credits, no demo call.

Start a free trial