Practitioners — Company Secretaries · Last updated 11 Jun 2026 · Hallucination Register

Finding#4 . Inverted FG22/5 on fair-value quantification for non-monetary benefits

RLB Citation ID: RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q008

AI's failure:Inference Drift Risk for Company Secretaries:Regulatory enforcement / professional liability exposure

What the RLB Specialist Panel found

Finding#4 . Inverted FG22/5 on fair-value quantification for non-monetary benefits

Citation ID: RLB-H-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q008-Opus47
AI's failure: AI inverted a regulator negative into an affirmative methodological requirement
Risk for Company Secretaries: Professional liability and regulatory enforcement exposure where the FCA's text resolves the question differently Company secretaries reviewing the annual Consumer Duty board report's fair-value section need to ensure the methodology described in the paper matches the FCA's actual expectation. If the AI's affirmative quantification framing reaches the board pack, the board approves a methodology that exceeds what FG22/5 requires, and the firm carries an unnecessary methodological commitment that will be hard to unwind.
see this finding ->

Impact for Company Secretaries in the United Kingdom advising on the Consumer Duty (PS22/9 + PRIN 2A)

Company secretaries reviewing the annual Consumer Duty board report's fair-value section need to ensure the methodology described in the paper matches the FCA's actual expectation. If the AI's affirmative quantification framing reaches the board pack, the board approves a methodology that exceeds what FG22/5 requires, and the firm carries an unnecessary methodological commitment that will be hard to unwind.

References — raw findings (per AI model)

RLB-H-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q008-Opus47 Claude Opus 4.7 (web search on)
RLB-H-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q008-Sonnet46 Claude Sonnet 4.6 (web search on)

This finding also affects

← Previous finding Finding#3 . Confused FG22/5 guidance with PRIN 2A.5 rule on consumer testing Next finding → Finding#5 . Split FS25/2 single-event withdrawal into invented April/August 2025 events

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-Q008

Plain text Download

RegLeg Specialist Panel (2026). "Finding#4 . Inverted FG22/5 on fair-value quantification for non-monetary benefits — Practitioners — Company Secretaries." Citation ID: RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q008. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research, published 2026-06-11. https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j3/GB/FCA/CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9/practitioners/company-secretaries/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-008/

APA 7th edition Download

RegLeg Specialist Panel. (2026). Finding#4 . Inverted FG22/5 on fair-value quantification for non-monetary benefits [Hallucination finding RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q008]. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research. https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j3/GB/FCA/CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9/practitioners/company-secretaries/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-008/

Bluebook / OSCOLA (US + UK legal) Download

RegLeg Specialist Panel, Finding#4 . Inverted FG22/5 on fair-value quantification for non-monetary benefits [RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q008], RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research (June 11, 2026), https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j3/GB/FCA/CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9/practitioners/company-secretaries/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-008/.

BibTeX Download

@misc{reglegbrief_RLB_F_GB_FCA_CONSUMER_DUTY_PS22_9_Q008,
  author    = {RegLeg Specialist Panel},
  title     = {Finding#4 . Inverted FG22/5 on fair-value quantification for non-monetary benefits},
  year      = {2026},
  publisher = {RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research},
  note      = {Hallucination finding Citation ID: RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q008},
  url       = {https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j3/GB/FCA/CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9/practitioners/company-secretaries/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-008/}
}

← 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.