Stewardship engagement tracking that checks every meeting for 13G risk and proves every outcome from the company's own words
Every meeting checked against 13G limits, and every outcome proven by a cited source.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Stewardship Engagement Tracking is engagement tracking software for investment stewardship teams: it logs every company engagement against its objectives, follows each objective up a ladder from Raised to Implemented, and drafts the annual stewardship report. Six AI agents turn notes into milestones, check every agenda for Schedule 13G risk before the meeting, draft letters in the company's language, prove progress from the company's own filings and watch the escalation clock. Analysts submit, engagement leads approve, Legal clears and the Head of Stewardship signs.
AI in asset management: a buyer's guide to agentic AI for investment managers →
Updated
Engagement tracking at a large asset manager covers hundreds of companies and many hundreds of shareholder engagements a year, each meant to move a specific objective — a methane target, a more independent board, pay tied to the right goals — for years until the company does what it said. Today the analyst types the meeting summary into the tracker days or weeks later, progress sits in a free-text field with a pasted link, and every spring the team re-reads years of notes and company reports to support the UK Stewardship Code Activities and Outcomes Report, the SRD II engagement report, PRI reporting and client reports, while Compliance checks every claim.
Since the SEC staff's guidance of February 11, 2025 (C&DI 103.12), every meeting at a company where the firm holds more than 5% carries a second risk: a holder that seeks a board seat, pressures management on a specific measure or ties its vote for directors to a change can lose the right to file the short Schedule 13G as a passive investor. Agendas go to Legal by email, often the day before, with no record of what Legal changed or why — and a follow-up letter or a collaborative letter can say the wrong thing just as easily.
Estimated working days of eight hours for one meeting at a company where the firm holds more than 5%, from the agenda to the report: about 14 hours by hand, 3.5 with the solution.
Six agents log notes, check every agenda for 13G risk, prove progress and draft the report; analysts submit, leads approve, Legal clears.
Quillfield Capital, a global asset manager, holds 6.10% of Hollis Marrow Energy Corp. — 8,742,000 shares, about $612.1M across 14 funds — and files Schedule 13G as a passive investor. It is Wednesday, October 21, 2026, and tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. the team meets the independent chair. Here is what happens next, screen by screen, in the working solution.
Claire's home shows 684 engagements in 2026 of about 800 planned, with 412 companies in 31 markets; 23 meetings in the next seven days, 3 with Legal before they happen; 14 rung changes waiting, 7 for her; and 297 of 1,094 objectives moved up this year. Under “Needs you”, the first two lines are Hollis Marrow: approve the methane rung, and an agenda with Legal that asks for a board seat at a 6.10% holding.
Filing Status agent, 5:30 a.m.: “Checked 23 agendas for the next 7 days: 20 clear, 3 sent to Legal, including a board-seat request at Hollis Marrow.”
Hollis Marrow opens on its three objectives, each a ladder of four rungs — Raised, Acknowledged, Plan committed, Implemented. Methane is Acknowledged since a meeting with the CSO on Sep 12, 2024; board skills is Raised since Jun 3, 2025; pay is Acknowledged since a meeting with the pay committee chair on Nov 6, 2025, and Quillfield voted against say-on-pay at the May 14, 2026 AGM, where it passed with 71.8% support. Beside the ladders runs the firm's escalation rail: the letter to the chair done on Apr 2, 2026, tomorrow's meeting with independent directors in progress.
“At 6.10% every step is checked by the Filing Status agent first.”
On Oct 15 the Evidence agent read Hollis Marrow's investor day deck and proposed Plan committed at 94% confidence. Slide 23, opened in one click: “We commit to a methane intensity of 0.20% by 2030 across our gathering and distribution assets, from 0.41% in 2024.” The target was approved by the Board on September 24, 2026, with OGMP 2.0 Level 5 reporting from 2027. Leah Brandt checked the slide against the press release and submitted it for approval.
Below 85% confidence the Evidence agent asks a person instead of proposing a rung.
The agent read Leah's agenda draft v2, checked the holding — 8,742,000 shares, 6.10%, 14 funds — and applied C&DI 103.12, the firm's guidelines and its phrase library of 23 patterns. Item 4, “Request a board seat for an independent director … nominated with Quillfield's input,” is high risk. Item 5, “say we will support next year's say-on-pay if,” needs review wording. It drafted a safer question for each and sent the agenda to Rafael Mendes, due by 10:00 a.m. Wednesday.
Claire asks why item 4 is a problem. “Asking for a board seat, or a say in who is nominated, is the clearest sign of control intent … The rewrite asks about the board's process instead.”
Rafael accepts the rewrite of item 4 — “Ask how the nominating committee looks for energy-transition expertise in its next director search. We do not propose or endorse candidates.” He edits item 5 to share Quillfield's published pay guidelines, with voting decisions made case by case before each meeting, and clears the agenda with LC-02, cleared with edits. The agent re-checks agenda v3: all 6 items clear, and the meeting brief is ready for the engagement lead.
Opening statement: “We are not seeking to change or influence control of the company, and we will not discuss how we will vote on directors.”
Claire approves Leah's submission with reason code RG-01, “Evidence confirms the rung,” and her signature is recorded on the audit trail. Methane-intensity target is now Plan committed. The Report agent adds it to the 2026 Activities and Outcomes Report as outcome evidence, cited to investor day slide 23, and marks Hollis Marrow as a case-study candidate.
A checker is never the maker: a lead cannot approve a rung change they submitted.
Leah's transcript of a call with Kestrel Bay Foods' CSO becomes five proposals, each tied to its sentence: a no-deforestation soy policy proposed for Plan committed but marked verbal, with a 12-month evidence clock; the policy published by Mar 31, 2027; traceability to crusher level for 90% of soy volumes by Dec 31, 2027, from 64% today; board committee oversight twice a year; and a letter confirming what was heard. One sentence — “Claire said we'd find it hard to support the board next year if there is no policy by then” — is flagged for Legal at a 5.30% holding.
The Filing Status agent on the flagged sentence: “I flagged it; I did not change the note.”
For Kisaragi Precision Industries in Tokyo, the agent drafts the letter to the CFO in Japanese with an English copy for the record, from Aiko Tanabe's note. Each commitment is cited: outside directors to be a majority from the June 2027 AGM, and cross-shareholdings reduced below 10% of net assets by the end of FY2027. The engagement lead approves and sends it, or returns it to the analyst.
Agents never send a letter.
Brenmoor Group has not acknowledged a request for an independent chair, or a lead independent director with defined powers, in 25 months, against an 18-month policy; two letters and a meeting request went unanswered. The agent proposes the next step on the rail, collaborative engagement. At 7.40%, the Filing Status agent warns that agreeing with other holders to act together could make Quillfield a “group” under Section 13(d)(3), and recommends a letter that only shares views. It needs Claire and Rafael.
The 2026 UK Stewardship Code Activities and Outcomes Report, with the SRD II engagement report and PRI answers, is 71% drafted. Every sentence cites the record behind it; the 13 rung changes still waiting and 1 verbal commitment are left out until approved. Compliance (Owen Pryce) reviews every claim, Legal reviews the section on US filing rules, and Claire signs before the FRC window closes on Apr 30, 2027.
“Rejected and returned records are never used.”
Five of the people who carry Quillfield's engagements — what their year looked like, and what it looks like now.
Six agents log notes, check every agenda for 13G risk, prove progress and draft the report; analysts submit, leads approve, Legal clears.
Turns meeting notes, transcripts, emails and company handouts, in any language, into objective updates, milestones with dates, commitments and follow-ups, each tied to its sentence.
Reads every agenda, letter and escalation before it reaches a company, checks the holding today and the Schedule 13G basis against the passive-filer rules and the firm's phrase library, flags each risky item and drafts a rewrite for Legal.
Drafts follow-up letters in the company's language with an English copy, every commitment cited to the note.
Watches each company's filings, reports, slides and AGM results in any language, and proposes the next rung or a met milestone with the passage cited beside the English.
Watches the clock on every objective against the engagement policy, proposes the next step on the escalation rail and checks it for 13G and group risk with the Filing Status agent.
Drafts the UK Stewardship Code Activities and Outcomes Report, the SRD II engagement report, PRI answers and client sections from approved records only, every sentence cited, and proposes case studies with outcome evidence.
Maker, checker, clearance, sign-off. The agents propose; a named person decides.
Every screen has the agents in the conversation. Ask about a company, a meeting, a letter or the report, or tell them what to do — every answer cites its source, and nothing changes on a record until a person approves it.
Why is item 4 a problem?
At 6.10% Quillfield certifies on Schedule 13G that it holds the shares without a purpose of influencing control. Asking for a board seat, or a say in who is nominated, is the clearest sign of control intent; the staff guidance also names conditioned support for directors. The rewrite asks about the board's process instead.
What exactly did they commit to?
Slide 23: 0.20% methane intensity by 2030 across gathering and distribution assets, from 0.41% in 2024; approved by the Board on September 24, 2026; OGMP 2.0 Level 5 reporting from 2027. It is public and dated, which is what Plan committed requires.
Which meetings this week need Legal?
3 meetings wait for Legal: Hollis Marrow Thu 10:00 a.m. (board-seat request, high), Cobalt Ridge Mining Fri 9:00 a.m. (sale of the coal unit, high) and Brenmoor Group Mon 2:00 p.m. (wording). The other 20 are clear.
What does the group warning mean for Brenmoor?
At 7.40% in Brenmoor, agreeing with other holders to act together, on votes or on a demand, could make us a “group” under Section 13(d)(3): our shares would be counted with theirs, and a group seeking change cannot file as passive. A letter that only shares views, with no agreement on voting, is the safe form. Rafael Mendes reviews the final text before anyone signs.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
The ladder, the escalation rail, the filing-status rules and the clocks are settings — each change is a version one person proposes and another approves, on the audit trail.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Ladder rungs | Raised · Acknowledged · Plan committed · Implemented | Evidence set per rung; framework 2026.3, approved by the Head of Stewardship |
| Evidence for Plan committed | A public, dated commitment | Or a verbal one, marked verbal with a 12-month evidence clock, never in the report until public |
| Escalation clock | 18 months on one rung | Then the Escalation agent proposes the next step on the rail |
| Escalation rail | Letter to the chair → meeting with independent directors → collaborative engagement → vote against → public statement → reduce or exit | Collaborative engagement and a public statement need Legal at 13G issuers; vote against is the voting committee's; reduce or exit is the portfolio manager's |
| Filing-status watch (United States) | Schedule 13G · watch from 4.5% | 10% amendment within 5 business days after the month end; Japan large-shareholding reporting at 5% and 10% |
| Phrase library | 23 patterns, owned by Legal | “request a board seat”, “support … if”, “or we will consider our options”, “group letter” …; v8 adds 3 more |
| Agent confidence threshold | 85% | Below it the agent asks a person; a new threshold is a version the Head approves after the evaluation |
| Service levels | Notes in 1 business day · rung approvals in 10 · letters in 5 | Late notes and rung approvals go to the Head of Stewardship, late letters to the engagement lead; each notification can be turned on or off |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
“demo” = seen in the working solution, on its sample data · “target” = the design goal, measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate · “typical” = published figures and rules (SEC staff Schedule 13D/G C&DI 103.12, February 11, 2025; SEC Schedule 13G amendments, effective September 30, 2024; ShareAction, Rules of Engagement — 3 of 50 large asset managers). Regulatory context: FRC UK Stewardship Code 2026; SRD II Article 3g. People, firms, companies and holdings named on this page are fictional — characters and sample data in the working solution.
Stewardship Engagement Tracking is engagement tracking software for investment stewardship teams: it logs every company engagement against its objectives, follows each objective up a ladder from Raised to Implemented, and drafts the annual stewardship report. Six AI agents turn notes into milestones, check every agenda for Schedule 13G risk before the meeting, draft letters in the company's language, prove progress from the company's own filings and watch the escalation clock. Analysts submit, engagement leads approve, Legal clears and the Head of Stewardship signs.
Each objective moves up a rung only on evidence: for Plan committed, a public, dated commitment; for Implemented, a public source showing it done. The Evidence agent watches filings, reports, slides and AGM results in any language and proposes the next rung with the passage cited; an analyst submits it and an engagement lead approves it. The stewardship report counts only those approved rungs.
Under the SEC staff's February 11, 2025 guidance, a holder above 5% that seeks a board seat, pressures management on specific measures or conditions its support for directors can lose its eligibility to file Schedule 13G as a passive investor. The Filing Status agent reads every agenda, letter and escalation at a holding above 4.5% against your filing-status rules, flags the sentence and drafts a rewrite. Your Legal counsel decides and clears; the agent never does.
Yes. The Report agent drafts the UK Stewardship Code Activities and Outcomes Report, the SRD II engagement report on how your SRD II engagement policy was applied, PRI answers and client excerpts from approved records only, with every sentence cited. Pending rung changes and verbal commitments are left out until approved. Compliance and Legal review, the Head of Stewardship signs, and exports are marked draft until then.
Notes, company handouts and filings are read in their own language — Japanese, German and French in the sample — and every passage is shown in the original beside the English. Follow-up letters are drafted in the company's language with an English copy for the record.
The escalation rail is your policy as a setting: letter to the chair, meeting with independent directors, collaborative engagement, vote against, public statement, reduce or exit. When an objective sits on one rung past the clock — 18 months in the sample — the Escalation agent proposes the next step and checks it for 13G and Section 13(d)(3) group risk. The Head of Stewardship approves, with Legal at 13G issuers; votes stay with the voting committee and exits with the portfolio manager.
Yes. The agents propose and explain; they never move a rung, clear an agenda, send a letter, escalate, vote or publish. Every decision carries a person, a reason code and a signature, a lead can never approve their own submission, and the audit trail is hash-chained and read-only.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents — your engagement policy, escalation rail, filing-status rules and past engagement records — and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. First-time setup connects your systems and imports your engagement history from spreadsheets, and lists the rows that need a person.
Issuer questions answered in minutes, every claim pinned to its source page.
1-min demoESG Data ExtractionHoldings move from estimated to reported ESG data, each figure cited to its page.
1-min demoPortfolio Company ESG Data CollectionEach company confirms prefilled values, and no outlier reaches an LP unexplained.
1-min demoWe'll run Stewardship Engagement Tracking on a sample of your own meeting notes, agendas and last year's stewardship report.