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

Consumer testing of communications — rule or guidance?

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

3. Consumer testing of communications — rule or 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 while consumer testing is not an absolute mandatory rule, a specific binding rule — PRIN 2A.5.10R — requires firms to test the effectiveness of their communications "where appropriate," presenting this as a Handbook rule marked "R."
  • What the regulator actually says: Consumer testing methodology sits in FG22/5 as guidance (not rules), where firms are recommended to "should" consider consumer testing. PRIN 2A.5 requires firms to act to deliver good consumer understanding outcomes but prescribes no specific testing methodology.
  • Why the AI went wrong: The AI invented a specific Handbook rule citation (PRIN 2A.5.10R) that does not reflect the actual regulatory text, and elevated guidance into a binding obligation by misattributing the testing requirement to a rule instrument. A Compliance team acting on this output could impose a mandatory testing obligation on the business that the FCA has not actually required, creating unnecessary cost and a false baseline for compliance assessment.
  • 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

If the Compliance team uses the AI's answer to scope the firm's communications review programme, it may designate consumer testing as a binding rule-level obligation and impose mandatory testing requirements on the product and marketing functions. This elevates guidance into a rule without FCA authority, creating a compliance baseline the firm cannot reconcile with the actual Handbook — and exposing the firm to criticism if the FCA reviews its Consumer Duty governance and finds the firm has mischaracterised the status of FG22/5 recommendations.

References — raw findings (per AI model)
This finding also affects
← Previous finding Finding 2. Scope of the harm avoidance obligation — customer-accepted risk Next finding → Finding 4. 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 or guidance? — Life Insurance × 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/life_insurance/compliance/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-007/
APA 7th edition 
RegLeg Specialist Panel. (2026). Consumer testing of communications — rule or guidance? [Hallucination finding RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q007]. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research. https://reglegbrief.com/audiences/sectors/gb/life_insurance/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 or guidance? [RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q007], RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research (May 26, 2026), https://reglegbrief.com/audiences/sectors/gb/life_insurance/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 or 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/life_insurance/compliance/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-007/}
}
← Back to case study summary Case study detail →
About Citation IDs →