⸺ Research for regulated fintech
Evidence that survives scrutiny.
We build the audit-ready evidence your compliance team needs, and the user insight your product team wants.
11
open FCA Consumer Duty investigations, July 2026
52%
of UK adults show vulnerability characteristics
£9.1bn
cost to one industry of a single evidence failure
382
formal FCA supervisory interventions in one year
Exhibit A
Evidence that holds up
— 6/6 regulatory assessments passed
— 10+ years of audit-ready evidence
— Full paper trail, every project, no exceptions
— 10+ research methods
Exhibit B
The half your evidence is missing
— Vulnerable & low-confidence users: covered
— Neurodivergent-inclusive research, built in, not bolted on
— Full paper trail, every project, no exceptions
Exhibit c
Fast. No shortcuts.
— 100% contract renewal rate
— Rapid turnaround
— Remote or in-person
Exhibit D
Boardroom-ready, every time
— One finding, every seniority level, no translation needed
— Zero-ambiguity handoff. Your team knows what to fix
— 15 project teams, one consistent standard
— Fully managed, start to finish. One less vendor to manage
⸺ Why now
We've already passed the harder version of this test.
Government Digital Service (GDS assessments require proving a public service works for user it serves. The full range of accessibility needs, digital exclusion, and low confidence, not a defined segment. We've passed that bar six times over, across a decade in government research.
Consumer Duty is fintech 's version of the same standard, and most fintechs are only just learning how to meet it. We are not building this capability from scratch. We are bringing an already-assessed evidence practice into a sector that's still building its own.
Founding fintech pricing, available while we build sector-specific case studies. Standard rates apply after.
⸺ Founding fintech pricing
Proven in government. Priced for fintech's first movers.
Slots: open
Evidence Gap Audit
2-week diagnostic against GDS assessment grade evidence standards and FCA Consumer Duty requirements.
Shows exactly where your evidence would fail scrutiny today.
£9,285 £6,980
Founding fintech rate
First 3 clients
Core Evidence Review
5—6 weeks. Single workflow, vulnerability-representative testing included as standard, not an upgrade.
£32,780 £18,450
Founding fintech rate
First 2 clients
Deep Evidence Review
8 weeks. Multi-driver vulnerability mapping, risk register, remediation prioritisation.
£52k - 62k £34k–38k
Founding fintech rate
First 3 clients
Founding Retainer
Quarterly evidence programme. One workflow retested every cycle, trend-tracking, board ready.
£8.5k - 10k/mo
£6,580/mo
Founding fintech rate
Founding rates reflect a decade of assessed government research work moving into fintech for the first time. Not a discount on the evidence itself. Standard rates apply once fintech-specific case studies are in place.
⸺ How it works
Three steps from evidence gap to evidence pack.
01
Audit
We map exactly where your Consumer Duty evidence has gaps, and what's at risk if they stay open.
02
Evidence sprint
We run the research and hand over a board-ready evidence pack. Accessible, vulnerable and mainstream users included.
03
Monitoring
Outcomes get re-tested on schedule, so your evidence stay current, not just correct on the day it was filed.
FAQs
We have a UX team. Isn't this something they should be doing?
Your UX team is optimised to help you build a better product - which is exactly what they should be doing. This is different.
A finding from your team cannot serve as independent evidence of consumer outcomes. Under Consumer Duty, independence isn't a preference, it's what makes the documentation defensible in a regulatory review. This review exists for the moment internal work needs external validation, and for the regulatory mapping that sits outside most UX teams' remit.
Will this actually be useful or is it a box-ticking exercise?
That depends on what you do with it. The report is designed to be used. Severity-rated findings, two formats for two different audiences, and follow-up session so the output doesn't sit in a shared drive. Whether findings result in changes is your team's decision. What we can guarantee is that nothing is softened to make it more comfortable. The value of independent review is that it tells you what you need to hear, not what you'd prefer to.
Who actually runs the sessions? The senior lead or a junior researcher?
The senior lead runs every moderated session.
That's non-negotiable - it's what the sessions require. Recruitment logistics and session coordination involve support, which is standard for any research engagement. The person in the room with your users, asking the questions and reading what's happening, is the same person who maps the findings to your regulatory obligations and writes the report.
Close the evidence gap before the FCA finds it.
20 minutes to walk through where your Consumer Duty evidence stands today, and what a full evidence pack would take.
SolveUI provides research and evidence-generation services. We are not a law firm and do not provide regulatory or legal advice.
SolveUI is a trading name of Ellimac Design Limited.
Elimac Design Limited registered in England and Wales, Company No. 09984713.
Registered office: International House, 64 Nile Street, London, N1 7SR.
© 2026 SolveUI