Consumer Duty Evidence Pressure Test
The annual report on outcomes has to rest on data from the workflow. Answer from your own volumes and handling, and this estimates what chasing, repair and making cases reportable consume today — on your inputs, with your uncertainty, not ours.
What this is, and what it is not
- An estimate of what your own numbers imply about avoidable effort in one insurance workflow, including the effort of making its cases reportable.
- A statement of how confident that estimate can be, given where your numbers came from.
- A list of the assumptions doing the most work, and the evidence that would settle them.
- Capable of concluding that there is probably not enough concentrated avoidable work to justify investigating further — and it says so when your inputs imply it.
- A saving. Nothing here is money you will recover, and the tool never says it is.
- A compliance assessment, a gap analysis or an opinion on whether your reporting meets the Duty. That is a matter for the firm and its advisers, and nothing here speaks to it.
- A measurement. It runs on what you tell it, and it is exactly as good as that.
- A substitute for the engagement. Establishing what the workflow actually costs, and which intervention is justified, is what the Evidence Sprint is for.
The annual report on outcomes has to be evidenced, not asserted
The FCA requires a firm to prepare a report for its governing body on the results of its outcomes monitoring, and requires that body to review and approve it, confirm whether it is satisfied the firm is complying, and assess whether future strategy is consistent with the Duty. The rules set no template, and no fixed date after the first report: the cycle is the firm’s own.
What the FCA has published since is a consistent account of where firms fall short, and it is an operational account rather than a drafting one. Reviews of board reports found data quality insufficient to justify the conclusions drawn, monitoring thresholds absent or unexplained, and — a year later — extensive data presented without an explanation of what it demonstrated. The insurance-specific review found metrics that were not comprehensive enough, data that lacked analysis, thresholds that did not appear appropriately set, and little monitoring of outcomes at claim settlement.
That is a workflow problem before it is a reporting problem. A case that was closed without its outcome recorded, its reason coded, or the missing evidence obtained from elsewhere in the distribution chain cannot be counted in a report, however the report is written. The effort of making cases reportable after the fact is operational effort, and it is rarely measured.
- FCA Handbook, PRIN 2A.8.3R and PRIN 2A.8.4RRead 10 October 2026
The report to the governing body, and the annual review, approval and confirmation it must receive.
- FG22/5, Final non-Handbook Guidance for firms on the Consumer DutyJuly 2022
The guidance on monitoring consumer outcomes that the board report reports on.
- Consumer Duty board reports: good practice and areas for improvementPublished 11 December 2024, updated 9 March 2026
A review of first-year board reports from 180 firms. Data quality insufficient to justify conclusions; thresholds omitted or unexplained.
- Insurance multi-firm review of outcomes monitoring under the Consumer DutyPublished 26 June 2024
Insurance-specific. Metrics not comprehensive enough, data lacking analysis, thresholds not appropriately set, little monitoring at claim settlement.
- Year 2 Consumer Duty Board Reports: progress and what comes nextPublished 16 April 2026
Extensive data presented without explaining what it demonstrated; monitoring of outcomes in distribution chains often weak.
FCA sources only, each with its reference and its date. Leania states no regulatory position and gives no compliance advice: what is quantified here is operational effort, and what the report must contain is a matter for the firm and its advisers.
Seven numbers and two answers
Loads the published synthetic insurance figures, so you can see how the result reads before answering anything. Chasing and repair apportion the published model's single avoidable-minutes figure using the log's own defect split, so the two together are exactly the published figure. Synthetic demonstration case: not a client, and not a result.
Assumed baseline. Volume, rate, both affected shares and the reportable population are derived from a synthetic operational log of 180 constructed rows, and the duration of making a case reportable is a stated Leania default. No client data and no real operating log stands behind any of it.
What happens to these answers. Your answers and the result are stored so the result can be reproduced if the calculation changes. Nothing identifies you: there is no account, no cookie and no tracking across visits, and the session reference exists only to show you this result. Nothing is sent anywhere until you press the button.