The heart of the advice process is advice. Essentially we have to answer the question 'what is good advice?' and then answer 'how can I make sure that happens?' the more rigorous and provable the answers to those questions, the easier the whole process gets, after which answering the question 'how can I prove that did happen?' becomes easy. For everyone: advisers, clients, insurers, regulators, and so on. This is the bit of the work that interests me most. Most advisers have a kind of theory of advice, a vision of 'ideal', and a great gut feeling for 'the best job in these circumstances'. These skills, formed by long years of working with clients are usually excellent. But most advisers are best at face-to-face communication with clients, not documenting their advice process. That may require some help.
Understanding your version of 'good advice' is difficult. I've even heard corporate lawyers struggle to define it with vague 'I think you know it when you see it' types of answer - but we really have to do better than that. Although houses may vary in size, style, configuration, and location - and many other characteristics - we also know that there are some criteria we can use to determine poor quality housing: overcrowding, lack of insulation, heating, ventilation, security, and so on. Understanding those criteria and how we check them is essential.