AI Hallucination ResearchAudiencesSectorsUnited KingdomRetail BankingLegalDetail › Finding
Retail Banking × Legal — United Kingdom · updated 2026-06-11
Share / Print Twitter LinkedIn Email

Finding#3 . Confused FG22/5 guidance with PRIN 2A.5 rule on consumer testing

RLB Citation ID: RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q007
AI's failure:Inference Drift Risk for Retail Banking × Legal:Regulatory enforcement / professional liability exposure
What the RLB Specialist Panel found
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?

RLB's analysis

The model cited a specific rule reference, PRIN 2A.5.10R, as imposing a testing requirement "where appropriate." The FCA's actual rules in PRIN 2A.5 set an outcome obligation (delivering good consumer understanding) without prescribing consumer testing as a specific method. The recommendation to consider consumer testing appears in FG22/5, which is guidance rather than a binding rule. The model cross-referenced the wrong instrument type and attributed a specific rule citation that does not map to the FCA's text in the way described.

AI Head's analysis — what weakness in the AI model caused this

This finding implicates the model's cross-referencing between binding rules and non-binding guidance within the FCA Handbook. The model cited a specific rule reference (PRIN 2A.5.10R) as the basis for a testing requirement that actually appears in FG22/5 guidance. This is a rule/guidance conflation error: attributing the normative force of a binding rule to a provision that is guidance-level. This class of error is particularly impactful for compliance users who need to distinguish what they must do from what the FCA recommends.

A targeted eval checking whether the model correctly attributes 'R', 'G', and 'E' provisions to the right normative level would surface this pattern systematically across the FCA Handbook and analogous structured rulebooks at other regulators.

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
  • Regulator portal (if any cited link is dud): https://www.fca.org.uk
Impact for Legal Teams in Retail Banking Sector in the United Kingdom working with the Consumer Duty (PS22/9 + PRIN 2A)

Retail Banking legal teams advising on whether consumer testing is mandatory under the Duty need to distinguish PRIN 2A.5 from FG22/5 cleanly. The model's specific citation of PRIN 2A.5.10R as the binding requirement is a sourcing error that, if relied on, imports a non-rule into the firm's compliance commitment.

References — raw findings (per AI model)
This finding also affects
← Previous finding Finding#2 . Fabricated multi-part safe harbour for foreseeable-harm rule Next finding → Finding#4 . 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-Q007
Plain text Download
RegLeg Specialist Panel (2026). "Finding#3 . Confused FG22/5 guidance with PRIN 2A.5 rule on consumer testing — Retail Banking × Legal — United Kingdom." Citation ID: RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q007. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research, published 2026-06-11. https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j3/gb/fca/consumer-duty-ps22-9/sectors/retail_banking/legal/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-007/
APA 7th edition Download
RegLeg Specialist Panel. (2026). Finding#3 . Confused FG22/5 guidance with PRIN 2A.5 rule on consumer testing [Hallucination finding RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q007]. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research. https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j3/gb/fca/consumer-duty-ps22-9/sectors/retail_banking/legal/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-007/
Bluebook / OSCOLA (US + UK legal) Download
RegLeg Specialist Panel, Finding#3 . Confused FG22/5 guidance with PRIN 2A.5 rule on consumer testing [RLB-F-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q007], RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research (June 11, 2026), https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j3/gb/fca/consumer-duty-ps22-9/sectors/retail_banking/legal/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     = {Finding#3 . Confused FG22/5 guidance with PRIN 2A.5 rule on consumer testing},
  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/regulators/j3/gb/fca/consumer-duty-ps22-9/sectors/retail_banking/legal/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-007/}
}
← Back to case study summary Case study detail →

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.