AI Hallucination Research › Audiences › Sectors › United Kingdom › Financial Advisory › Compliance › Detail › Finding
Financial Advisory × Compliance — United Kingdom · published 2026-05-26 · methodology v2.1

Consumer testing of communications — rule versus guidance

RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q007
What the RLB Specialist Panel found

4. Consumer testing of communications — rule versus guidance

  • Question (paraphrased to protect IP): Is consumer testing of communications a mandatory requirement under the Consumer Duty? What does PRIN 2A.5 require versus what FG22/5 recommends on this point?
  • Source regulation: Consumer Duty (PS22/9 + PRIN 2A), Financial Conduct Authority (Regulator portal: https://www.fca.org.uk)
  • What AI assistants typically say: AI tools state that consumer testing is not an absolute mandatory requirement but then attribute a binding testing obligation to a specific rule reference in PRIN 2A.5, describing it as requiring firms to test the effectiveness of their communications "where appropriate." This mischaracterises the regulatory position by placing a testing requirement in the binding rules when the recommendation to consider consumer testing appears in FG22/5 guidance, not in PRIN 2A.5.
  • What the regulator actually says: FG22/5 contains guidance (not rules) recommending firms should consider consumer testing of communications. PRIN 2A.5 as a rule requires firms to act to deliver the good consumer understanding outcome — no specific testing methodology is prescribed in the rules.
  • Why the AI went wrong: The AI conflated the outcome the rules require (good consumer understanding) with a specific methodology (consumer testing) that appears only in guidance. By citing a specific binding-rule reference for the testing requirement, the AI led users to believe consumer testing is a rule obligation rather than a guidance recommendation — a distinction that matters for determining what the FCA can enforce and what firms can treat as discretionary.
  • Cited source(s):
  • https://handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/PRIN/2A/5.html — Pretextual
  • https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/finalised-guidance/fg22-5.pdf — Pretextual
Impact for this audience

A Compliance team that treats consumer testing as a binding rule obligation — rather than a guidance recommendation — may impose mandatory testing requirements on communications production that the FCA does not actually require, creating disproportionate operational burden. More significantly, if the firm's communications policy documents consumer testing as a rule requirement, this creates a compliance gap if testing is missed: the firm has self-imposed a standard it then fails to meet, which the FCA may treat as an internal policy breach even though the underlying regulatory obligation did not require it. The distinction between PRIN 2A.5 rules and FG22/5 guidance also matters for how the FCA can enforce: guidance non-compliance is handled differently from rule breaches.

References — raw findings (per AI model)
This finding also affects
← Previous finding Finding 3. Retail customer definition — micro-enterprises and charities Next finding → Finding 5. Fair value assessment — quantification of non-monetary benefits
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). "Consumer testing of communications — rule versus guidance — Financial Advisory × Compliance — United Kingdom." Citation ID: RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q007. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research, published 2026-05-26. https://reglegbrief.com/audiences/sectors/gb/financial_advisory/compliance/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-007/
APA 7th edition 
RegLeg Specialist Panel. (2026). Consumer testing of communications — rule versus guidance [Hallucination finding RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q007]. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research. https://reglegbrief.com/audiences/sectors/gb/financial_advisory/compliance/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-007/
Bluebook / OSCOLA (US + UK legal) 
RegLeg Specialist Panel, Consumer testing of communications — rule versus guidance [RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q007], RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research (May 26, 2026), https://reglegbrief.com/audiences/sectors/gb/financial_advisory/compliance/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-007/.
BibTeX 
@misc{reglegbrief_RLB_F_GB_FCA_CONSUMER_DUTY_PS22_9_Q007,
  author    = {RegLeg Specialist Panel},
  title     = {Consumer testing of communications — rule versus guidance},
  year      = {2026},
  publisher = {RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research},
  note      = {Hallucination finding Citation ID: RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q007},
  url       = {https://reglegbrief.com/audiences/sectors/gb/financial_advisory/compliance/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-007/}
}
← Back to case study summary Case study detail →
About Citation IDs →