AI Hallucination Research › Findings by audience › Sectors › United Kingdom › Retail Banking › Product Bizdev › Detail › Finding
Retail Banking × Product Bizdev — United Kingdom · Last updated 28 May 2026 · methodology v2.1 · Hallucination Register
Share / Print X LinkedIn Email

Quantification requirements in Consumer Duty fair value assessments

RLB Citation ID: RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q008
AI's failure:Inference Drift Risk for Retail Banking × Product Bizdev:Regulatory enforcement / professional liability exposure
What the RLB Specialist Panel found

1. Quantification requirements in Consumer Duty fair value assessments

  • Question (paraphrased to protect IP): Does the Consumer Duty require firms to quantify non-monetary benefits as part of a fair value assessment, and what methodology does the FCA expect?
  • 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 gave similar incorrect responses, characterising quantification as either encouraged where feasible or implicitly expected beyond a qualitative description — while treating qualitative assessment as a fallback that applies only when quantification is impractical. One tool framed the FCA's position as permissive toward quantification with qualitative assessment as an acceptable substitute; another stated that firms are expected to go beyond qualitative description and provide substantiated comparisons.
  • What the regulator actually says: The FCA does not expect firms to quantify non-monetary costs and benefits as part of its fair value assessment process, but firms should undertake some form of qualitative assessment.
  • Why the AI went wrong: Both AI tools inverted the regulator's position — treating a clear statement that quantification is not expected as an implicit encouragement to quantify, and converting an unconditional obligation to conduct qualitative assessment into a conditional fallback. The error appears to reflect AI tools defaulting toward more rigorous-sounding interpretations of regulatory standards rather than accurately representing what the source text says.
  • Cited source(s):
  • https://handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/PRIN/2A/4.html — Pretextual
  • https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/finalised-guidance/fg22-5.pdf — Pretextual
  • https://www.fca.org.uk/publications/good-and-poor-practice/consumer-duty-find... — Pretextual
Impact for Product & Business Development Teams in Retail Banking Sector in the United Kingdom working with the Consumer Duty (PS22/9 + PRIN 2A)

Retail Banking product and business-development teams designing fair-value assessment templates for new retail products need to keep the methodology aligned with FG22/5's qualitative-only standard. The model's reversal would inflate fair-value template length and approval-cycle time without any regulatory benefit.

References — raw findings (per AI model)
This finding also affects
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.

RLB Citation ID: RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q008
Plain text Download 
RegLeg Specialist Panel (2026). "Quantification requirements in Consumer Duty fair value assessments — Retail Banking × Product Bizdev — United Kingdom." Citation ID: RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q008. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research, published 2026-05-28. https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j3/GB/FCA/CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9/sectors/retail_banking/product_bizdev/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-008/
APA 7th edition Download 
RegLeg Specialist Panel. (2026). Quantification requirements in Consumer Duty fair value assessments [Hallucination finding RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q008]. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research. https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j3/GB/FCA/CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9/sectors/retail_banking/product_bizdev/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-008/
Bluebook / OSCOLA (US + UK legal) Download 
RegLeg Specialist Panel, Quantification requirements in Consumer Duty fair value assessments [RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q008], RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research (May 28, 2026), https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j3/GB/FCA/CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9/sectors/retail_banking/product_bizdev/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-008/.
BibTeX Download 
@misc{reglegbrief_RLB_F_GB_FCA_CONSUMER_DUTY_PS22_9_Q008,
  author    = {RegLeg Specialist Panel},
  title     = {Quantification requirements in Consumer Duty fair value assessments},
  year      = {2026},
  publisher = {RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research},
  note      = {Hallucination finding Citation ID: RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q008},
  url       = {https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j3/GB/FCA/CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9/sectors/retail_banking/product_bizdev/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-008/}
}
← Back to case study summary Case study detail →
About Citation IDs →

Every finding on this page compares an AI subject's account of the rule against the regulator's verbatim text from the regulator's own portal. Both are linked. Each delta, its root causes, and impact analysis are documented and published with immutable Citation IDs.