Gemini Notebook for Finance and Accounts Professionals Formerly NotebookLM. Google's source-grounded research assistant: setup, source curation, citation discipline, the new code execution, and the notebooks worth building.

Gemini Notebook, which almost everyone still calls NotebookLM, is Google's source-grounded research assistant. You give it documents, and it answers only from those documents, with a citation on every claim that you can click to see the exact passage it came from. For an auditor or a tax practitioner that constraint is not a limitation. It is the whole point.

How it differs from a general chat assistant

Read that table twice. It tells you the division of labour: Gemini Notebook for what the documents say, a general assistant for what to do about it. Part 08 covers using them together.

Why this matters for an audit or tax file

The professional problem with AI has always been the same: fluent output you cannot trace to a source. Gemini Notebook addresses that directly. When it tells you what the group accounting manual says about capitalisation, the citation takes you to the paragraph. You are no longer taking the machine's word for it, which means the output can support work you sign.

• A statute library that answers questions. Load the Act, the Finance Act and the SROs, then ask.
• A permanent file that talks back. Load prior year accounts, board minutes, the accounting manual and major contracts, then ask what changed.
• A circular library. Load the Bangladesh Bank circulars your reporting depends on and ask what applies to a given transaction.
• Onboarding and training. Turn a body of technical material into briefings, mind maps and audio your staff will actually consume.

Computation: what the July 2026 update did and did not change

Until this update the answer was simple: never take a number from a notebook. That has now changed, but only partly, and the distinction is one you have to hold in your head.

Setup is genuinely quick, because there is nothing to install and the free tier is not crippled. What takes thought is which account you use.

Step 1: Sign in

1. Go to notebooklm.google and sign in with a Google account. The old address still works after the rename, and a second address at notebook.google.com has been reported rolling out alongside it. Bangladesh is on Google's list of supported countries and territories.
2. Decide the account before you upload anything. A personal Gmail and a firm Workspace account are governed by different terms and different data handling. See Part 09.
3. If you use a work or school account, an administrator has to turn access on. If the option is missing, that is why.
4. Install the mobile app if you want audio overviews on a commute. App availability differs by country from the web version.

Step 2: Understand the limits, because they shape how you organise everything

You cannot buy Gemini Notebook on its own. It comes with a Google AI plan, a qualifying Google Workspace plan, or a Google Cloud licence. Prices differ by country and are billed through Google One, so check one.google.com for the rate in Bangladesh rather than trusting a US figure.

The limit nobody notices until it bites

The per-source ceiling does not change with your plan. A single very large file has to be split before it will load, no matter how much you spend. Plan for that when you load a multi-volume manual or a full year of board papers.

Step 3: The workspace, labelled

Three panels, and understanding the split is most of the learning curve. This is a drawing rather than a captured screenshot so that each area can be numbered.

The single biggest mistake is treating a notebook like a folder. It is closer to a witness: what it can tell you is bounded entirely by what it has seen.

One notebook, one bounded question

A notebook that contains the Income Tax Act, three clients' financial statements and a Bangladesh Bank circular will give you muddled answers, because retrieval has to compete across unrelated material. A notebook scoped to one subject gives sharp ones.

Source selection is a control, not a convenience

Inside a notebook you can tick and untick individual sources before asking. Use it deliberately. Asking a question with only the 2026 Finance Act selected gives you a different and more reliable answer than asking with three years of Finance Acts loaded together, because the model cannot then blend them.

Everything downstream depends on this step. Curation is the professional skill here, and it is one accountants already have.

What you can load

• PDFs: statutes, circulars, annual reports, agreements, assessment orders, standards, board packs.
• Google Docs and Slides: your own memoranda, templates, training material.
• Websites: a regulator's published page, an ICAB or NBR notice.
• YouTube videos: recorded seminars and technical briefings.
• Audio files: a recorded training session or client briefing, subject to consent.
• Discover sources: describe a topic and it proposes sources to add.
• Deep Research: it investigates a question and imports the report plus the sources it cited, in one step.

Five rules of source hygiene

1. Load the primary text, not a summary of it. A blog post about the Finance Act is not the Finance Act, and the citation will point at the blog post.
2. Date every source in its title. Rename files before uploading: "Finance Act 2026" beats "FA final v3 (2)". The title is what you see in citations.
3. Do not load superseded material into a live notebook. If you need history, keep a separate archive notebook and say so in the title.
4. Split very large documents. The per-source ceiling does not move with your plan.
5. Check the source list before you trust an answer. Any answer is only as good as the weakest document in the selected set.

Building the Bangladesh tax reference notebook

1. Create a notebook titled "BD income tax reference, as at [date]".
2. Load the current Income Tax Act text, the operative Finance Act, and the SROs and general orders you rely on in practice.
3. Add your firm's own internal notes on contested positions, clearly titled as internal.
4. Add a source that is simply a dated note stating what is loaded and what is deliberately excluded. Future you will need it.
5. Re-date and rebuild it after every Finance Act. Set a diary note now.

The chat looks like every other AI chat box. The discipline around it is completely different, because here you can and must verify.

Ask like an auditor, not like a search engine

The four question shapes that do the most work

• Locate. "Which of my sources deal with X, and where in each?" Use this first, always.
• Compare. "How does the treatment in source A differ from source B?" This is where it beats reading, because it holds both at once.
• Test. "Is there anything in the selected sources that contradicts the position that X?" Explicitly hunting for contradiction is the most professionally valuable question you can ask it.
• Gap. "What does the selected material not address about X?" It is unusually good at admitting absence, which general assistants are bad at.

Working only from the sources I have selected:

Question: [state it precisely, with the transaction, parties and period]

Answer in this order:
1. The direct answer, in two sentences.
2. The operative words from the source, quoted briefly, with the section,
   paragraph or clause reference.
3. Any condition, exception or proviso in the sources that qualifies it.
4. Anything in the selected sources that points the other way.
5. What the selected sources do not cover that I would need to resolve this
   properly.

If the sources do not answer the question, say so plainly instead of
reasoning around it.

Citation checking, which is the actual job

Click every citation that supports a conclusion you will rely on. You are checking three things, and it takes seconds:

1. Does the cited passage say what the answer claims? Usually yes. Occasionally the summary is subtly broader than the text.
2. Is it from the source you expected? A citation pointing at your internal note rather than the statute changes the weight entirely.
3. Is there context immediately around it that changes the meaning? A proviso in the next sub-section is the classic trap.

The Studio panel turns the same sources into other formats. Some of it is genuinely useful in practice. Some of it is a novelty. Here is the honest split.

Generate a report from the selected sources for [audience: engagement team /
audit committee / credit committee].

Structure:
1. What the sources collectively establish, in five bullets.
2. The specific obligations or requirements they impose, each with its
   source and reference.
3. Where the sources conflict or leave a question open.
4. What is not addressed anywhere in the loaded set.
5. Five questions this raises that a reviewer should ask.

Keep every statement traceable to a citation. Do not add context from
outside the sources. Where you are summarising rather than quoting, say so.

Build a data table from the selected sources, one row per [agreement /
circular / assessment order], with these columns:

[counterparty] | [date] | [term or effective date] | [key obligation] |
[financial covenant and its defined ratio] | [penalty or default clause] |
[source reference]

Rules:
- Every cell must be traceable to a citation.
- Where a document is silent on a column, write "not stated" rather than
  inferring a market norm.
- Do not normalise different wordings into one phrase if the difference
  could matter legally. Quote the distinguishing words.

Five concrete builds, in the order I would do them. Each takes under an hour to set up and pays back on the first use.

1. Bangladesh tax and VAT reference

Current Act texts, the operative Finance Act, the SROs and general orders you actually use, plus a dated note of what is loaded. This is the answer to the biggest weakness in every general AI assistant: statutory recall. Here the statute is in the room.

2. Bangladesh Bank circular library

Every circular your reporting and provisioning depends on. Then ask questions like "which of these deal with classification of restructured facilities, and do any of them conflict?" That question is hard for a human across forty documents and easy here.

3. Client permanent file

Memorandum and articles, the last three years of financial statements, board minutes, major contracts, and the group accounting manual. Now "what has the board actually approved about intercompany lending?" is a thirty second question instead of an afternoon.

4. Standards notebook

The IFRS and ISA texts your firm relies on. Use it to check what a standard requires before you write the note, and to generate disclosure checklists you then run against your own.

5. Firm knowledge and training

Your audit manual, methodology notes, house templates and technical updates. Then generate flashcards and quizzes for article students, and audio overviews for staff who are travelling. This turns dormant firm knowledge into something people consume.

Working only from the selected sources for this client:

1. List every matter raised in prior year management letters or audit
   memoranda, with the year and the source reference.
2. For each, state whether anything in the loaded sources indicates it was
   resolved, and cite what indicates it.
3. Flag every matter where the sources are silent on resolution. These are
   the ones to carry into this year's planning.
4. List commitments management made in writing, with dates and references.
5. Identify anything in the board minutes that suggests a transaction or
   arrangement not reflected in the financial statements I loaded.

Do not conclude. Give me a planning agenda with references I can verify.

Two things separate an occasional user from someone who has built a system: sharing notebooks properly, and knowing which tool to reach for.

Sharing and collaboration

Notebooks can be shared with colleagues, and advanced sharing is available on paid plans. Two points a partner should hold in mind: sharing a notebook does not raise a collaborator's own source limit, and sharing a notebook shares everything in it. Check the source list before you share a client notebook with anyone outside the engagement team.

Deep Research inside the notebook

Deep Research investigates a question, then imports both its report and the sources it relied on directly into your notebook, where they become part of the grounded set for every future question. For industry background, regulatory landscape and comparator work this is a strong workflow. Free accounts get a monthly allowance rather than a daily one, so spend those runs on questions that matter.

Notebooks across the Gemini ecosystem

This is the other half of the July 2026 rename. You can now access and create notebooks directly inside the Gemini app, with syncing between the app and the standalone Gemini Notebook experience, and Google says notebooks are coming to AI Mode in Google Search. The old frustration that every notebook was an island is largely gone.

For a practice this cuts both ways. Grounded firm knowledge becomes reachable wherever you are working, which is genuinely useful. It also means a notebook holding client material is now reachable from more surfaces than the one you deliberately opened. Fold that into the sharing decision in Part 09 rather than treating it as a convenience feature.

The secure cloud computer

Every notebook is being given a sandbox that lets it write and execute code against your loaded sources, rather than only summarising them. For an accountant this turns a reading tool into something that can also tabulate, reconcile and chart the material it has read, without leaving the grounded set.

Three practical notes before you build a workflow on it:

• Check it has reached you. It landed first on Google AI Ultra and on Workspace business customers with AI Ultra Access and AI Expanded Access, with Pro on the web following over subsequent weeks.
• Confirm code actually ran. The value is in execution. If the answer arrives as prose with no visible computation, it is prose.
• Your own working still goes on the file. The output is evidence you can check, not a substitute for the schedule you sign.

Which tool for which job

The strongest workflow uses both. Find and verify the provision in Gemini Notebook, take the verified reference into a general assistant for the computation and the drafting, then bring the finished output back to your own review. Neither tool replaces the other, and neither replaces you.

The data position here is better than most AI tools, and the account you use decides how much better.

What Google states about your data

• Your data is protected and is not used to train the product unless you provide feedback. If you submit a thumbs up or thumbs down, Google may review the full context of that interaction, including your uploads and queries. That is a meaningful consequence hiding behind a very small button.
• For Google Workspace and Workspace for Education accounts, uploads, queries and responses are not reviewed by human reviewers even when you give feedback, and are not used to train AI models.
• For the enterprise tier through Google Cloud, uploaded files remain within your Google Cloud project, data regionalisation is honoured, and files, chats and outputs are not human-reviewed or used to improve models.

The four decisions to make at partner level

1. Which account. A firm Workspace account carries materially better data handling than a personal Gmail. If notebooks will hold client material, this decision is already made for you.
2. What may be loaded. Statutes and circulars are public. Client contracts, board minutes and financial statements are not. Write the categories down.
3. Who a notebook is shared with. Sharing is per notebook and shares everything in it.
4. What lands on the audit file. The provision and its reference, not the chat.

Professional obligations that do not change

• Confidentiality under the IESBA Code as adopted by ICAB applies to everything you upload.
• Professional competence and due care. A citation makes verification possible. It does not perform it. You still open the source.
• Audit documentation under ISA 230. Document the evidence, not the tool.
• Google's own caution is worth quoting to any partner who asks: the product can make mistakes and its answers do not reflect Google's views, and it directs users to consult a qualified professional for financial advice. In our case, we are that professional.

Copy, paste, replace the bracketed parts. Type in the box to filter.

Across the selected sources, list every place that deals with [topic].

For each: the source title, the section or paragraph reference, and one line
on what it says there. Order them by how directly they address the topic.

Do not summarise the topic itself. I only want a map of where to read.

Read the selected sources against each other and find every point where they
conflict, overlap inconsistently, or use the same term differently.

For each conflict:
- Quote the competing words from each source, briefly, with references.
- State plainly whether one supersedes the other on the face of the
  documents, or whether that is not determinable from what I have loaded.
- Do not resolve the conflict yourself. Show it to me.

Working only from the selected circulars:

1. Which of them apply to [transaction or exposure type]? List with dates
   and references.
2. In date order, what did each one change, quoting the operative words.
3. Which is currently operative on the face of these documents, and which
   have been expressly superseded? Where supersession is not stated, say so.
4. What obligations does the current position impose on us, each one
   testable.
5. What I would need to load to be confident this list is complete.

From the selected agreements, build a table with one row per agreement:
counterparty, date, term, financial covenants with their defined ratios and
test dates, security given, events of default, change of control provisions,
and the clause reference for each.

Where an agreement is silent on a column, write "not stated". Do not infer
a market standard. Where two agreements define the same ratio differently,
add a note quoting both definitions.

Compare the accounting policy notes across the financial statements in the
selected sources.

1. Every policy that changed wording between years, with both versions
   quoted and both references.
2. Every policy that appears in one year and not another.
3. Whether the statements explain the change, and where.
4. Which changes could affect comparability, and which look like drafting
   tidy-ups rather than substantive change.

Do not conclude on whether any change was appropriate.

From the selected board and committee minutes for [period]:

1. Every approval of a transaction, borrowing, guarantee, related party
   arrangement or capital commitment, with date and reference.
2. Every matter recorded as deferred, unresolved or to be reviewed later.
3. Every mention of litigation, regulatory contact, investigation or
   material dispute.
4. Every reference to a going concern, liquidity or covenant discussion.
5. Anything approved that I should expect to see reflected in the accounts.

Give me references for all of it. Do not assess whether anything was
correctly accounted for.

Using only the standard loaded in the selected sources, produce a disclosure
checklist for [standard].

One row per requirement: the requirement in plain language, the paragraph
reference, and whether the standard makes it mandatory or conditional on
circumstances.

Separate the presentation requirements from the note disclosure
requirements. Do not add anything from your general knowledge, and do not
include requirements from other standards even where they usually travel
together.

From the selected sources, build training material for [article students /
new bank finance staff] on [topic].

1. A one-page briefing on what the sources say, in plain language, cited.
2. Twelve flashcards covering the points people most often get wrong.
3. A ten-question quiz with answers and the source reference for each.
4. Three realistic Bangladeshi scenarios that test judgement rather than
   recall, with a model answer for each drawn from the sources.

Keep every technical statement traceable. Where the sources do not settle a
point of judgement, say so in the model answer.

I am about to advise on [matter], relying on the sources currently selected.

Tell me what these sources do not address that a reviewer would expect me to
have considered. Be specific: name the question, and say what kind of
document would answer it.

Do not attempt to answer those gaps from general knowledge. I want the list,
not the fill.

Generate an audio overview of the selected sources, but focus it on:

- What changed and when, in date order
- The practical obligations it creates for a finance team
- The three points a practitioner most often misunderstands

Audience: qualified accountants in Bangladesh. Assume technical vocabulary
is understood. Skip the general introduction to the topic and get straight
to the substance.

No prompt matches that word. Clear the filter to see all of them.

Twenty minutes a day, on documents you already have to read. Progress is held in the page only, so it resets if you reload.

Week 1: the mechanics

• Sign in and decide which Google account will hold client material
• Create your first notebook and load five sources you know well
• Ask ten questions and click every single citation
• Deliberately ask something the sources do not cover, and see how it responds
• Practise selecting and deselecting sources and watch the answer change

Week 2: the reference libraries

• Build the Bangladesh tax and VAT reference notebook, dated
• Build the Bangladesh Bank circular library
• Run the contradiction hunt across both and check what it finds
• Verify one statutory answer end to end against the printed text
• Set a diary note to rebuild the tax notebook after the next Finance Act

Week 3: client work

• Build a permanent file notebook for one significant client
• Run the prior year carry-forward question and take it into planning
• Build one data table across a set of agreements or circulars
• Generate one report and edit it into something you would actually send
• Write down your firm's rule on what may be loaded and who may share

Week 4: leverage

• Build the firm knowledge notebook and generate a quiz for article students
• Listen to one audio overview of a long circular on your commute
• Run one Deep Research question and review what it imported
• Use the tool stack table: one task in the notebook, then finish it elsewhere
• Train one colleague using this document and the question library

Primary sources used in this manual

• The rename and the secure cloud computer: NotebookLM is now Gemini Notebook, Google blog, 16 July 2026
• Plan limits, premium features and data handling: Upgrade Gemini Notebook, Google Help, accessed 29 July 2026
• Product overview, supported countries and data protection: Learn about Gemini Notebook, Google Help, accessed 29 July 2026
• Product site: notebooklm.google
• Help centre: support.google.com/gemininotebook
• Plan subscriptions: Google AI plans. Prices vary by country, so check the Bangladesh rate
• Enterprise deployment: Gemini Notebook for enterprise, Google Cloud
• Using it with a work or school account: Google Help

Bangladeshi statutory references in this manual are illustrative. Always work from the current text of the Income Tax Act 2023, the Value Added Tax and Supplementary Duty Act 2012, the operative Finance Act, applicable SROs, and current Bangladesh Bank circulars.

Glossary