The operating answer
Start from the actual FCA request: scope, entities, period, questions and deadline. Preserve the evidence, nominate accountable responders and make the submission traceable. The workflow below is an editorial preparation method, not an FCA-prescribed checklist. [FCA]
The workflow below is our editorial synthesis. Regulatory statements link to primary sources. Examples are hypothetical, and applicability requires a firm-specific assessment.
Read the request into a control sheet
Copy each requested item into a working index, keeping the regulator's numbering. Record the requested period, entity, format and delivery deadline. Identify ambiguities early. A team that guesses the period or interprets a request differently across functions creates inconsistencies before the first document is collected.
Nominate a coordination owner and a substantive owner for each answer. The coordinator manages dependencies and delivery. The substantive owner is responsible for what the answer says. One person can perform both roles, but the responsibilities should remain clear.
Preserve the underlying records
Create a controlled evidence location with a clear access model. Preserve original files and distinguish them from extracts or presentation copies. Record how an extract was produced, including the date, filters and any transformation.
Do not edit a historic record to make it match a current process. If the process changed, supply the relevant versions and explain the change. A clean-looking document that erases the history is less useful than an honest chronology that shows the issue and response.
Build an index with useful fields
For each item, record its identifier, description, system of origin, period, owner and location. Add the request item it supports. A filename such as “final-final-v3” does not tell a reviewer whether a policy was approved or which operational period it governs.
Keep the index small enough to use. Avoid copying every record into multiple folders. Link to controlled originals and record the exact version being supplied. Where a document is missing, record the gap and the proposed explanation instead of leaving the cell blank.
Reconcile numbers before rehearsing answers
Choose the material figures likely to appear across the pack: customer counts, relevant funds, complaints, incidents or open control issues. Check that the definitions, periods and entities are consistent. When they differ legitimately, explain why.
This is not an exercise in forcing every number to match. A month-end balance and a daily average are different measures. The objective is to remove unexplained differences and make the basis of each number visible. Save the reconciliation work, not only the polished chart.
Prepare people to describe the real process
Ask each process owner to explain a recent example from start to finish. The explanation should identify the systems used, the checks performed, the exception route and the record retained. Where the owner does not know an answer, the correct response is to identify who does and follow up accurately.
Do not script employees to imply that a control operates more effectively than the evidence supports. A rehearsal is useful for finding unclear responsibilities and inaccessible records. It should not create a fictional process that exists only in a presentation.
Keep issue and remediation status precise
Separate an issue that has been identified, an action that has been implemented and an outcome that has been independently tested. Those are different states. A closed project ticket may show implementation without establishing that the underlying risk has been reduced.
Present significant open issues with the owner, impact assessment, interim controls, target date and evidence needed for closure. The FCA's published materials on safeguarding, board reporting and resilience can help frame the relevant evidence, but the request itself determines what should be supplied. [FCA] [FCA] [FCA]
Control submission and follow-up
Before submission, check completeness against the request index, not against the number of files in the folder. Confirm access, formats and version labels. Keep a record of what was sent, when it was sent and any agreed follow-up.
After the visit, maintain an action log that distinguishes regulator requests from the firm's own improvements. Record the exact commitment and its owner. If a deadline becomes unrealistic, escalate it through the appropriate channel rather than quietly changing the date in the internal tracker.
| Pack layer | Purpose | Example evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Request index | Show completeness | Question, owner, due date and response link |
| Control description | Explain how work happens | Policy, process map and role allocation |
| Operating evidence | Show what actually happened | Dated runs, exceptions and approvals |
| Issues and changes | Show remaining risk | Issue log, interim controls and retest |
Working checklist
Progress is saved only in this browser when local storage is available. Ticks record your work; they are not a compliance score.
Method, assumptions and limits
We use official sources for regulatory facts and label our suggested workflows as editorial methods. Illustrative examples are hypothetical. The content does not establish the position of any individual firm and is not a prescribed regulator template.
Source review date: 12 November 2026. No automatic monitoring is running. Check the underlying document, applicable entity, activity and jurisdiction before using this material.
Read the full methodologyQuestions, answered.
Is this the FCA’s official visit checklist?
No. This is an editorial method for organising evidence. The actual request and applicable requirements take precedence.
Should historic policies be replaced with the current version?
Preserve relevant historic versions and explain subsequent changes. Do not make the record imply that a newer policy operated earlier.
What is the purpose of a rehearsal?
To test whether owners can explain the real process and retrieve supporting evidence, not to manufacture scripted assurance.
Sources & scope
Primary sources used for this research edition. Document dates and commencement dates are different fields. Recheck the issuing authority before acting.
- FCA: Our approach to supervisionSupervisory approach · source reviewed 12 November 2026
- FCA: Safeguarding requirements for payment and e-money institutionsGuidance · source reviewed 12 November 2026
- FCA: Consumer Duty board reports: good practice and improvementReview · source reviewed 12 November 2026
- FCA: Operational resilienceGuidance · source reviewed 12 November 2026