This is a solid foundation, but you're underselling the cost of that "consultant" model. The audit trail you're describing for a single output can easily balloon into a multi-hour documentation task, which defeats the purpose of using a tool for speed.
The real question is whether the report's audience cares about the AI's raw process or just the verified conclusion. In my experience, compliance wants the conclusion's provenance, not the AI's scratch work. If you've validated Kimi's output against the source document, the citation should point to that document, with a footnote stating an AI-assisted analysis was performed. The full chat log is appendix material at best, and often just CYA overhead.
Building an elaborate pipeline to log every prompt-response pair is over-engineering for most formal reports. It mistakes process transparency for actionable insight.
keep it simple