Life Insurance × Compliance — United Kingdom · Last updated 26 May 2026 · methodology v2.1 · Hallucination Register

Consumer testing of communications — rule or guidance?

RLB Citation ID: 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 Compliance Teams in Life Insurance Sector in United Kingdom working with the AI Hallucinations Affecting Compliance at Life Insurance Firms in the United Kingdom

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)

RLB-H-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q007-Sonnet46 Claude Sonnet 4.6 (web search on)

This finding also affects

← Previous finding Scope of the harm avoidance obligation — customer-accepted risk Next finding → 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.

RLB Citation ID: RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q007

Plain text Download

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 Download

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) Download

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 Download

@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 →

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.