Retail Banking × Legal — United Kingdom · published 2026-05-26 · methodology v2.1

Changes from CP21/36 consultation to PS22/9 final rules

RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q017

What the RLB Specialist Panel found

3. Changes from CP21/36 consultation to PS22/9 final rules

Question (paraphrased to protect IP): Were there significant differences between the Consumer Duty as proposed in CP21/36 and the final rules in PS22/9? What specific provisions were changed?
Source regulation: Consumer Duty (PS22/9 + PRIN 2A), Financial Conduct Authority (Regulator portal: https://www.fca.org.uk)
What the regulator actually says: The specific differences between the CP21/36 draft and the PS22/9 final rules are not recoverable with sufficient precision to provide a verified verbatim excerpt for this question.
What AI assistants typically say: Multiple AI tools gave similar incorrect responses. Both provided detailed, numbered lists of specific changes — covering implementation timelines, foreseeable harm wording, outcomes monitoring scope, product governance alignment, and the decision not to introduce a private right of action — presented with confidence and without any acknowledgement of uncertainty. The specificity of these responses (including characterisations of precise wording changes, such as shifts from one phrase to another in the rule text) goes well beyond what can be reliably verified.
Why the AI went wrong: When asked about the differences between a consultation paper and final rules, AI tools reconstruct a plausible-sounding account from general knowledge about the regulatory process rather than from verified primary sources. Broadly documented features (such as the two-stage implementation timeline and the private right of action decision) may be accurate, but AI tools embed those accurate points within a larger response containing characterisations of specific wording changes that cannot be confirmed — and they present the entire answer with the same confident register throughout, giving the reader no signal about which parts are reliable and which are reconstruction.
Cited source(s):
https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/consultation/cp21-36.pdf — Pretextual
https://www.womblebonddickinson.com/uk/insights/articles-and-briefings/consum... — Pretextual

Impact for this audience

A Legal team that uses an AI summary of the differences between the CP21/36 consultation draft and the PS22/9 final rules as the basis for internal training, policy documentation, or regulatory mapping risks building firm processes around provisions that may no longer exist in the form described, or framing the Duty's requirements around draft-stage wording that was subsequently revised. If the firm's Consumer Duty implementation framework is later reviewed by the FCA and found to reflect the consultation rather than the final rules, the firm faces remediation costs, potential enforcement action under PRIN 2A, and reputational harm — particularly as the FCA has indicated it will scrutinise the robustness of firms' Consumer Duty governance arrangements.

References — raw findings (per AI model)

RLB-H-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q017-Opus47 Claude Opus 4.7 (web search on)
RLB-H-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q017-Sonnet46 Claude Sonnet 4.6 (web search on)

This finding also affects

← Previous finding Finding 2. Retail customer definition — charity threshold and sourcebook variation

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). "Changes from CP21/36 consultation to PS22/9 final rules — Retail Banking × Legal — United Kingdom." Citation ID: RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q017. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research, published 2026-05-26. https://reglegbrief.com/audiences/sectors/gb/retail_banking/legal/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-017/

APA 7th edition

RegLeg Specialist Panel. (2026). Changes from CP21/36 consultation to PS22/9 final rules [Hallucination finding RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q017]. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research. https://reglegbrief.com/audiences/sectors/gb/retail_banking/legal/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-017/

Bluebook / OSCOLA (US + UK legal)

RegLeg Specialist Panel, Changes from CP21/36 consultation to PS22/9 final rules [RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q017], RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research (May 26, 2026), https://reglegbrief.com/audiences/sectors/gb/retail_banking/legal/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-017/.

BibTeX

@misc{reglegbrief_RLB_F_GB_FCA_CONSUMER_DUTY_PS22_9_Q017,
  author    = {RegLeg Specialist Panel},
  title     = {Changes from CP21/36 consultation to PS22/9 final rules},
  year      = {2026},
  publisher = {RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research},
  note      = {Hallucination finding Citation ID: RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q017},
  url       = {https://reglegbrief.com/audiences/sectors/gb/retail_banking/legal/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-017/}
}

← Back to case study summary Case study detail →

About Citation IDs →