Skip to main content
RegulationsFCA Consumer Duty

Consumer Duty requires firms to deliver and demonstrate good customer outcomes.

Decisions are made every day. Products approved. Prices set. Customers accepted or declined. When outcomes are questioned, most organisations explain what happened. They cannot prove it.
PRIN 2APRIN 2A.2PRIN 2A.3In force since 31 Jul 2023
The obligation

This is what Consumer Duty looks like in your decisions.

Each customer outcome is the result of a decision. Each decision must be defensible.
// consumer duty evidence surface

You have decisions you cannot prove.

You have customer decisions you cannot defend.

Consumer Duty regulates the decision, not the policy document about the decision. This shows you where outcomes cannot be proven.

FCA Consumer DutyPRIN 2A · 2A.2 · 2A.3

Deliver and demonstrate good customer outcomes

Updated today
8

customer decisions lack defensible evidence

14pricing calls without rationaleAcross 4 product surfaces
32vulnerable-customer actions reconstructedLast 90 days · oldest 211 days
3PRIN 2A clauses affected2A · 2A.2 · 2A.3

Outcomes monitoring tells you the shape of the harm. A receipt tells you the call behind it.

See how it works
  • A customer is declinedOutcome exists, justification lost
  • A product is pricedRationale unrecoverable
  • A vulnerable customer mis-servedContext fragmented across systems

Where this breaks.

  • Customer context boundCircumstances at the time
  • Policy + criteria sealedVersion applied to the call
  • Outcome defensibleReplayable on demand

With a Decision Receipt.

Outcomes are monitored in aggregate. Consumer Duty asks for the call.

Policies exist separately. Customer context is fragmented. Decisions are not captured at the moment they are made. When asked to demonstrate good outcomes, firms explain their processes. Consumer Duty requires something stronger.

Consumer Duty attaches to decisions

Good outcomes are not a report.

They are the ability to show what was decided, what criteria applied, what customer context was considered, and why the outcome was appropriate. Bound together. At the moment of the call.
  • What decision was madePRIN 2A · 2A.3
  • What policy or criteria appliedPRIN 2A.2
  • What customer context was consideredPRIN 2A.2 (foreseeable harm)
  • Why the outcome was appropriatePRIN 2A.3 (good outcomes)

Each decision must be defensible.

MeshQu mapping

A customer outcome becomes a decision.

A decision produces a Decision Receipt — the decision, the policy applied, the customer context, the outcome. Captured at execution. Not reconstructed later.
Decision ReceiptCustomer OutcomeDR-K7M9-2P4Q
Verified
Decision
Approved by Risk Committee
Policy
Third-party risk — Tier 1, v7
Evidence
3 attestations, 2 documents
Integrity
sha256:0xdead…beef
Defensible by design

Each outcome can be examined as an individual decision.

Not as an aggregate. Not as a report. As the call that was made.
  • The customer's circumstances at the time
  • The policy that was applied
  • The criteria used
  • Why the outcome was appropriate

Captured at the moment the decision was made.

Trust posture

Verifiable without trusting MeshQu.

A receipt can be verified independently. No reliance on internal systems. No dependency on MeshQu. Proof stands on its own.
Questions

Consumer Duty, in practice

Does MeshQu prove good outcomes automatically?
No. It proves the decision that produced the outcome, including the policy, context and reasoning available at the time.
Can this help with vulnerable customer decisions?
Yes. MeshQu can capture the context, policy and outcome for decisions involving vulnerable customers.
Is this only for automated decisions?
No. Manual, automated and AI-assisted decisions can all produce receipts.
The boundary

If you cannot defend these decisions, you cannot demonstrate good outcomes.

See how it works