Practitioners — Lawyers · published 2026-05-26 · methodology v2.1

Differences between CP21/36 consultation and PS22/9 final rules

RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q017

What the RLB Specialist Panel found

8. Differences between CP21/36 consultation and PS22/9 final rules

Question (paraphrased to protect IP): Were there significant differences between the Consumer Duty as proposed in CP21/36 and the final rules in PS22/9? What specific provisions were changed?
Source regulation: Consumer Duty (PS22/9 + PRIN 2A), Financial Conduct Authority (Regulator portal: https://www.fca.org.uk)
What AI assistants typically say: Multiple AI tools provided detailed lists of specific changes from the consultation draft to the final rules, covering the implementation timeline, scope and distribution chain clarifications, the wording of the foreseeable harm cross-cutting rule, product governance alignment, and the decision not to introduce a private right of action. Both responses were presented with confidence and without any acknowledgement of uncertainty about the accuracy of the specific details.
What the regulator actually says: The specific differences between the CP21/36 consultation draft and the PS22/9 final rules were not recoverable from publicly accessible sources at the time of testing, and cannot be verified against a primary regulatory text.
Why the AI went wrong: Where specific regulatory history is not reliably recoverable, AI tools produced confident and detailed accounts that may blend broadly documented facts with plausible reconstruction. Specific characterisations — particularly around exact wording changes to the foreseeable harm rule — cannot be confirmed and may be incorrect. Legal advice that relies on unverified accounts of how a rule was drafted creates risk if that characterisation is challenged, for example in correspondence with the FCA or in proceedings where legislative intent is relevant.
Cited source(s):
https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/consultation/cp21-36.pdf — Pretextual
https://www.womblebonddickinson.com/uk/insights/articles-and-briefings/consum... — Pretextual

Impact for this audience

A lawyer advising on the legislative history of the Consumer Duty — to establish the FCA's intent behind a specific provision, to support a regulatory challenge, or to help a client understand how obligations evolved from consultation to final rules — needs to distinguish verified changes from plausible reconstruction. AI tools tested here produced confident, detailed accounts of specific CP21/36-to-PS22/9 changes that cannot be verified against the FCA's published text. Legal advice built on unverified regulatory history creates risk if any specific characterisation is challenged, particularly in correspondence with the FCA or in proceedings where the intent behind a rule's wording is directly in issue.

References — raw findings (per AI model)

RLB-H-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q017-Opus47 Claude Opus 4.7 (web search on)
RLB-H-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q017-Sonnet46 Claude Sonnet 4.6 (web search on)

This finding also affects

← Previous finding Finding 7. FCA public commentary on first-year Consumer Duty compliance Next finding → Finding 9. Scope exclusions — reinsurance, large-risk contracts, and group insurance distribution

Cite this finding

Each finding has a stable Citation ID (RLB-F-… for aggregated case-study findings, RLB-H-… for raw per-model hallucinations) — like a DOI, the ID always resolves to the canonical finding even if URLs change.

Plain text

RegLeg Specialist Panel (2026). "Differences between CP21/36 consultation and PS22/9 final rules — Practitioners — Lawyers." Citation ID: RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q017. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research, published 2026-05-26. https://reglegbrief.com/audiences/practitioners/GB/lawyers/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-017/

APA 7th edition

RegLeg Specialist Panel. (2026). Differences between CP21/36 consultation and PS22/9 final rules [Hallucination finding RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q017]. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research. https://reglegbrief.com/audiences/practitioners/GB/lawyers/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-017/

Bluebook / OSCOLA (US + UK legal)

RegLeg Specialist Panel, Differences between CP21/36 consultation and PS22/9 final rules [RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q017], RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research (May 26, 2026), https://reglegbrief.com/audiences/practitioners/GB/lawyers/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-017/.

BibTeX

@misc{reglegbrief_RLB_F_GB_FCA_CONSUMER_DUTY_PS22_9_Q017,
  author    = {RegLeg Specialist Panel},
  title     = {Differences between CP21/36 consultation and PS22/9 final rules},
  year      = {2026},
  publisher = {RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research},
  note      = {Hallucination finding Citation ID: RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q017},
  url       = {https://reglegbrief.com/audiences/practitioners/GB/lawyers/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-017/}
}

← Back to case study summary Case study detail →

About Citation IDs →