AI Hallucination Research › Audiences › Sectors › United Kingdom › Retail Banking › Compliance › Detail › Finding
Retail Banking × 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 assistants acknowledge that consumer testing is not an absolute mandatory requirement, but then assert that a specific binding rule — cited as PRIN 2A.5.10R — requires firms to test the effectiveness of their communications "where appropriate." The AI presents this as a rule marked "R" in the Handbook, carrying binding force.
  • 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 good consumer understanding outcomes but prescribes no specific methodology for achieving this. No specific testing methodology is mandated by the rules.
  • Why the AI went wrong: The AI misattributed a testing obligation to a specific binding rule reference that does not reflect how PRIN 2A.5 and FG22/5 actually divide the normative landscape. A Compliance team relying on this answer would treat a guidance recommendation as a binding rule requirement, creating unnecessary compliance burden and a misaligned internal policy.
  • 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 the AI's invented binding rule reference — placing consumer testing in PRIN 2A.5.10R — as authoritative will build a testing obligation into its internal policy that the actual rules do not impose. This creates unnecessary compliance costs (budgeting for consumer testing programmes that go beyond what is required), potential confusion when the firm cannot locate the cited rule reference in the Handbook, and the risk of a policy that is internally inconsistent with what the firm's legal advisers understand the rules to say. If the firm subsequently relies on this policy in a regulatory submission or supervisory interaction, the misstatement of the binding rule will be apparent to the FCA.

References — raw findings (per AI model)
This finding also affects
← Previous finding Finding 3. Scope of the retail customer definition — micro-enterprises and charities Next finding → Finding 5. Quantification of non-monetary benefits in fair value assessments
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 — Retail Banking × 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/retail_banking/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/retail_banking/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/retail_banking/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/retail_banking/compliance/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-007/}
}
← Back to case study summary Case study detail →
About Citation IDs →