Most firms evaluate an AI meeting-notes tool on accuracy and price. Regulated firms have a second question that decides whether the tool can be used at all: when the tool produces a transcript or a summary of a client or deal conversation, where does that record go, who controls it, and for how long?
Quick answers
Do AI meeting notes have to be archived?
Not under a rule written for AI notes. Existing recordkeeping rules apply to the underlying communication and to records that capture it, and your firm decides in policy which AI outputs count. Decide deliberately and write it down.
Which AI note-takers document an archive connector?
As at 5 October 2026, vendors document these: Fellow and Global Relay (an Open Connector for Fellow), Zocks (a Global Relay Open Connector that requires a Zocks Enterprise account), and Jump (which states it can archive selected outputs to Global Relay, Smarsh or Proofpoint). We have not confirmed others.
What should you check on an archive connector?
Who built and supports it, what is sent (transcript, summary, audio, metadata), how failed deliveries are reported, and whether edits and audit trails are preserved. Test it with a real meeting before rollout.
The short answer
Treat it as a records question first and a feature question second. Regulators have mostly not written rules aimed specifically at AI-generated notes. Instead, existing recordkeeping rules apply to the underlying communication and to records that capture it, and your firm decides, in policy, which AI outputs fall inside that scope. If you have not decided, the tool is already creating records you have not classified.
Three different things a tool may produce
"Meeting notes" is really three artefacts, and your policy should say how each is treated:
- The recording or audio, if the tool captures it. This is the closest thing to the original communication.
- The transcript, a text rendering of what was said, with speaker labels and timestamps if available.
- The AI summary and action items, a generated interpretation. It can be useful as a record of what was agreed, but it is also where errors creep in.
A common approach is to archive the transcript and the summary together, so a reviewer can check the summary against the source. Whether you also retain the audio depends on your firm's policy and the rules that apply to the conversation.
Rules that commonly come into play
Which of these apply depends on your firm type, jurisdiction and the conversation in question. Use this as a prompt for your compliance team, not a definitive list.
| Framework | Why it matters for AI meeting notes |
|---|---|
| MiFID II and FCA SYSC 10A (UK and EU investment firms) | Requires recording of telephone conversations and electronic communications relating to certain transactions, and records of relevant face-to-face meetings. Records are generally kept for five years, and up to seven if the regulator asks. AI notes may help produce a meeting record, but only if they are accurate and reviewed. Sources: FCA Handbook SYSC 10A and MiFID II on EUR-Lex. |
| SEC Rule 17a-4 (US broker-dealers) | Sets how electronic records must be preserved, either in non-rewriteable, non-erasable form or with a complete time-stamped audit trail. Source: 17 CFR 240.17a-4 (eCFR). |
| SEC Rule 204-2 (US investment advisers) | Books and records rules for advisers, including written communications relating to certain advice and transactions. Source: 17 CFR 275.204-2 (eCFR). |
| GDPR / UK GDPR | Transcripts contain personal data. You need a lawful basis, transparency to participants, and storage limitation, which pulls against indefinite retention. Source: GDPR on EUR-Lex. |
| Recording and consent laws | Rules on notifying or obtaining consent from people being recorded or transcribed vary by country and, in some places, by state. |
Whether a particular AI summary counts as a required record is a judgment for your compliance function and, where unclear, your regulator. The safe habit is to decide deliberately and write the decision down.
What to check on an archive connector
A vendor saying "we integrate with your archive" can mean anything from a native, tested connector to a manual export. Before you rely on one, check:
- Who built and supports the integration? A native connector supported by the vendor is different from a generic export that your own team has to wire up.
- What is actually sent: the transcript, the summary, the audio, and metadata such as participants, timestamps and the meeting title.
- Format and fidelity: can your archive store and search it in the format sent, and is anything lost, such as speaker labels or formatting?
- Timing and failure handling: how soon after the meeting does the record arrive, and do you get an alert if a delivery fails, or does it fail silently?
- Edits: if a user edits the summary after it was archived, is the original preserved and the change logged?
- Immutability and audit trail: does your archive preserve the record in a way that meets the rules that apply to you?
- Search and production: can you find a given meeting and export it for a regulator or a legal hold?
- Coverage: does the integration work for all the platforms the tool captures, or only some, and for all users or only certain plans?
Archive integrations documented by vendors
The integrations below are documented by the vendors named, as at 5 October 2026. They are statements by those vendors, not tests by Attestly, and they change by plan and over time. Confirm the current details with the vendor before relying on them.
| Tool | What the vendor documents |
|---|---|
| Fellow | Fellow and Global Relay both document an Open Connector for Fellow that archives meeting transcripts, AI summaries and action items to Global Relay. A Fellow admin enables it in Fellow's settings, and the firm subscribes separately through Global Relay. Sources: Global Relay and Fellow. |
| Zocks | Global Relay lists an Open Connector for Zocks that archives meeting notes, transcripts and structured records. Global Relay states that it requires a Zocks Enterprise account with at least one Enterprise admin, and a Global Relay subscription. Source: Global Relay. |
| Jump | Jump states that it can archive the meeting outputs a firm selects to Global Relay, Smarsh or Proofpoint. Source: Jump. |
We have not confirmed an archive integration for the other tools in our Meeting notes category, and absence from this table does not mean none exists. Ask each vendor which archive platforms it supports, how delivery works, and which plan is required.
Retention versus deletion
There are two opposing pulls. Recordkeeping rules tell you to keep certain records for a minimum period. Data protection rules tell you not to keep personal data longer than necessary. In practice firms set retention to the longest period that genuinely applies to that record type, then delete on schedule, in both the archive and the vendor's own platform.
- Check the vendor's default retention and whether you can configure it, so you are not holding a second, unmanaged copy of every transcript.
- Make sure a legal hold in your archive can also suspend deletion in the vendor tool, or confirm that the archive is the sole system of record.
- Confirm what happens to the vendor's copy when you terminate, and how deletion is evidenced.
Accuracy becomes a compliance issue once it is archived
An AI summary can misattribute a statement, drop a caveat or invent an action item. If that summary is archived as the record of a client conversation, the error becomes part of the record. Build in a human review step for conversations where the record matters, keep the transcript alongside the summary, and be clear in policy about which one prevails if they disagree.
Capture method matters too
Some tools join a call as a visible participant, others capture audio locally without a bot. That affects what participants see, how notice and consent work, and what the tool can access. Neither approach is automatically better for compliance, but it is worth knowing which one you are adopting and making sure participants are told in a way that fits your jurisdiction.
Document the decision
For each approved tool, record which artefacts you retain, where they go, for how long, who reviews summaries, and what evidence you have that the integration works. That file is what an examiner will ask for. For the wider vendor review, see our AI vendor due diligence checklist.
Using Webex? See how to archive Webex meeting recordings and chat for SEC compliance.
Browse the tools: communications archiving tools and AI meeting notes tools.
Compare meeting-notes and archiving tools on documented facts
Attestly tracks SOC 2 status, training policy and data residency for AI tools in meeting notes and communications archiving, so your shortlist starts from verified facts.
Browse the directoryThis article is a general overview for orientation and is not legal, regulatory or compliance advice. Recordkeeping, recording and data protection obligations depend on your firm, its regulators and the specific communication, and they change. Confirm what applies to you with a qualified compliance or legal professional, and verify current rules before relying on anything here.