From regulatory update to impact assessment.
A regulatory change impact assessment records what a publication means for your institution: whether it applies, what could change in your operations, which actions need an owner and which dates need attention. Keep the reasoning and source evidence alongside the decision.
This template is Comperse’s suggested internal review aid for compliance teams. Adapt its fields to your institution’s process and the scale of the change.
Download the blank impact assessment template (.txt) ↓
Start with the publication’s status.
Before identifying actions, establish what you are reading. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) explains that its consultation papers contain proposals and draft rules, while policy statements follow consultation and include the final legal instrument. See the FCA’s guide to publication types.
The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) also distinguishes consultation papers, policy statements and supervisory statements in its policy publication guide. Read the publication and associated documents to establish their status and the provisions relevant to your assessment.
For a proposal, your immediate decision might concern whether to respond and what to investigate. For a final change, inspect the relevant scope, effective dates and transition arrangements. Keep any proposed implementation planning clearly labelled until the position is confirmed.
Eight fields for a useful assessment.
Use one record for each development, with separate actions where different teams or deadlines are involved. The blank download includes these fields and a repeatable action record.
| Field | What to record |
|---|---|
| Source and version | Regulator, document title/reference, official URL, publication date, version checked and relevant paragraphs. |
| Publication status | Consultation, final policy, guidance or other material. Identify proposals separately from requirements already in force. |
| Institution scope | Entity, permissions, activities, products and locations assessed; why each is relevant, excluded or unresolved. |
| Change and evidence | What changed, the supporting source passage and any assumptions or interpretation that need confirmation. |
| Operational impact | Affected policies, processes, systems, data, controls, people and third-party dependencies. Record the current position and potential gap. |
| Dates and priority | Separate consultation, effective and reporting dates from internal targets. Link each external date to its source; explain priority. |
| Actions and ownership | Specific next step, accountable owner, dependencies, target date and evidence needed to demonstrate completion. |
| Review and decision | Reviewer, decision date, open questions, escalation, next review trigger and evidence supporting closure or no action. |
Make the applicability decision explicit.
A subject match is a starting point. Test the publication’s scope against the relevant legal entity and its actual activities. Record the source paragraph and the institution information used, so another reviewer can follow your reasoning.
Useful working outcomes include applicable, not applicable, potentially applicable and information needed. If you record no action, preserve the reason and identify what would cause that decision to be revisited. A gap in information should remain visible until it is resolved.
A worked example: an unresolved reporting question.
Illustrative scenario. A fictional UK financial institution receives a fictional consultation proposing an additional field in a regulatory return. This example shows an internal review process; it refers to no actual rule, institution or deadline.
Potentially applicable
The reporting team believes it submits the return, but has not confirmed whether the proposal covers this entity. The assessment records that uncertainty and asks the reporting owner to compare the proposed scope with the entity’s reporting obligations.
Data availability needs checking
If the proposal applies, the team would need to establish whether the field is already held, who owns the data and whether the existing reporting process could produce it. The gap remains provisional until those checks are complete.
Resolve scope before deciding the response
The reporting owner takes the scope check; the data owner checks availability. Each records evidence and an agreed internal target. Compliance uses the findings to decide whether to recommend a consultation response and to identify questions for a later final-policy review.
In a real assessment, replace the scenario with the exact publication, paragraphs and dates. Record the consultation closing date separately from any proposed effective date and your own review targets. Do not turn an internal target into a regulator-issued deadline.
Turn the findings into reviewable actions.
- Define the output. Replace “review impact” with a concrete result, such as a documented scope decision or a comparison of existing data fields with the proposed return.
- Name the owner and dependencies. Identify who can complete the step and what information or decision they need from others.
- Explain the date. Record whether the target is internal or externally specified, and how it relates to the relevant publication dates.
- Agree the completion evidence. A revised process, testing result or reasoned no-change decision may be appropriate, depending on the action.
- Record the review. Capture who checked the result, any remaining questions and the next review trigger.
Revisit an assessment when the underlying publication changes, a proposal becomes final or new information about the institution changes the scope decision. Keep the earlier reasoning and make the revised conclusion easy to identify.
Bring your review process to a walkthrough.
Comperse provides daily UK regulatory monitoring and email updates, with source-linked assessments of institution relevance, severity, suggested actions and dates. Those assessments give your team a starting point for its own review.
Explore the current source coverage or our FCA and PRA tracking guide. Bring this template to a walkthrough to discuss how Comperse’s assessments fit your process.
Official publication guides checked on 14 September 2026. The template and fictional example are Comperse’s suggested workflow.