Reviews
Part of How to review finance creators and providers with evidence you can trace
Reviewing a finance creator with five separate questions and no score
Build a finance creator review method for England that separates identity, permissions, evidence, commercial terms and reader-risk checks clearly.
A finance creators review methodology should help an editor decide whether evidence is sufficient to proceed, not manufacture a winner. The moneyinfluence.co.uk editorial research team designed this desk method on 5 September 2026 for commercial work aimed at adults in England. It has not been applied to a live creator, firm or campaign.
The reviewer should record the precise object: legal entity, trading name, creator account, service, proposed content, destination and review date. A review of a brand name alone is too vague because one group may contain several entities and regulated permissions may attach to only one of them.
What to take away
- Record the precise object being reviewed because a brand name alone is too vague for a decision.
- Use five separate questions covering identity, regulatory scope, claims, commercial relationships and the reader data route.
- Mark each question with an evidence state rather than a numerical score that can hide a fatal gap.
- Set non-negotiable hold conditions before looking at candidates, such as an unmatched legal entity or unclear approval.
- Desk research cannot establish service quality, financial outcome, account security or partner behaviour during an incident.
Begin with five separate questions
First, establish identity. Capture the entity's own terms, privacy notice and product page, then compare its name and company number with the free Companies House register guidance. Companies House warns that its service is not comprehensive and may contain errors or omissions. A filing is therefore an identity lead, not proof that every marketing claim is true.
Five Review Questions
- Identitycompare name and company number
- Regulatory scopesearch exact entity on FCA
- Claimmatch evidence to population and date
- Commercial termsrecord payment, gifts, control
- Reader riskidentify audience, harm, complaints path
Second, test regulatory scope. For a UK financial service, search the exact entity on the FCA's Firm Checker or Financial Services Register.
Record the reference number and current status. Then note relevant permissions, restrictions, trading names and any appointed-representative relationship.
The FCA says authorisation reduces risk but doesn't remove it. A register result isn't an endorsement, a product rating or evidence the proposed promotion is suitable.
Third, examine the claim. Save the first-party wording and find evidence matching its population, product, date and geography. Separate a verified feature from an advertised benefit, and both from a forecast.
If a creator will communicate an in-scope financial promotion, FCA FG24/1 requires it to be fair, clear and not misleading. Qualified review must decide whether the proposed content is a promotion and who may communicate or approve it.
Fourth, inspect the commercial relationship. Record payment, gifts, affiliate tracking, editorial control, reuse rights, exclusivity and termination. The CMA's guidance for brands says businesses share responsibility for making incentivised endorsements clear. Disclosure is a separate test from financial-promotion compliance.
Fifth, consider the reader and data route. Identify the intended adult audience, plausible harm, complaints path, correction owner and every transfer of personal data. Do not infer that a popular account reaches an appropriate audience or that high engagement shows understanding.
Use evidence states, not a score
For each question mark verified, partly verified, contradicted, not applicable or unknown. Link the source and note who checked it. A numerical score can hide a fatal gap: strong creative work cannot offset a missing regulated permission or an unverifiable return claim.
Evidence States vs Score
Evidence states
- Shows gaps
- Yes, fatal gaps visible
- Missing permission
- Contradicted or unknown
- Unverifiable return
- Flagged as unknown
- Action
- Hold or seek evidence
Numerical score
- Shows gaps
- No, hides gaps
- Missing permission
- Can be offset
- Unverifiable return
- Can be offset
- Action
- Proceed on total
Set non-negotiable hold conditions before looking at candidates. Examples include an unmatched legal entity, unclear promotion approval, absent risk evidence, undisclosed incentive, unsafe data flow or refusal to grant correction rights. Other weaknesses can become contractual actions with an owner and deadline.
State the review's limits
The final note should name records not inspected and gates not tested. Desk research cannot establish service quality, financial outcome, account security or how a partner behaves during an incident. Public registers can also change after the review date.
The verdict should be proceed to qualified review, seek evidence or hold. It should never say "best" merely because the candidate passed identity checks. Re-run entity, permissions, claims and destination checks immediately before publication, then archive the evidence used for the actual decision.
Before you act
- Record the legal entity, trading name, account, service, content, destination and review date.
- Check the entity on Companies House and the FCA register where relevant.
- Save first-party claim wording and match evidence to its population, product, date and geography.
- Record payment, gifts, affiliate tracking, editorial control, reuse rights, exclusivity and termination.
- Identify the adult audience, harm, complaints path, correction owner and data transfers.
- Re-run entity, permissions, claims and destination checks immediately before publication.
Common questions
Why does the method avoid giving a numerical score?
A score can hide a fatal gap. Strong creative work cannot offset a missing regulated permission or an unverifiable return claim. Instead each of the five questions is marked verified, partly verified, contradicted, not applicable or unknown, with the source linked and the checker noted.
What does an FCA register result actually prove?
It is not an endorsement, a product rating or evidence that the proposed promotion is suitable. The FCA explains that authorisation reduces risk but does not remove it. Record the reference number, current status, permissions, restrictions, trading names and any appointed-representative relationship.
What can the verdict say, and what can it never say?
The verdict should be proceed to qualified review, seek evidence or hold. It should never say best merely because the candidate passed identity checks. The final note should also name records not inspected and gates not tested, since public registers can change after the review date.
