kn0w issues the AI Accountability Audit for FinTech companies in the United Kingdom: an independent, fixed-scope audit of how a company adopts and governs AI, issued as a signed Statement with a public identifier, benchmarked against a peer cohort, and reissued annually under the same methodology. This page sets out what is issued, how, and where it sits against UK regulatory expectations.
01 · What is issued
The audit is a fixed-scope engagement conducted across seven sessions: Session 0 with the CEO, Sessions 1 to 6 with six function heads. It measures six dimensions: workflow automation, tool deployment, AI literacy, governance and oversight, investment spend, and outcome tracking. Each session pairs a structured intake with a voice session, so the record reflects what is running rather than what is planned.
The audit names the CEO Visibility Gap: the distance between how the CEO reports the company's AI position and what the function heads' evidence shows. The result is issued as a signed Statement carrying a public four-part identifier. Standing runs twelve months, is maintained through three Quarterly Reviews, and is confirmed by the Annual Statement, reissued under the same methodology. The category is defined at What is an AI Accountability Audit? and the full methodology is published at kn0w.co/methodology.
02 · Independence
kn0w holds no implementation arm, sells no software, and takes no referral fees from vendors whose tools appear in a member's evidence. There is no retainer and nothing to renew except standing itself. The Issuer's only product is the issued record, which is what allows the same methodology to be applied to the same company year after year without the finding being shaped by what might be sold next.
03 · The peer benchmark
The Statement is benchmarked against a cohort of comparable companies. The audit serves FinTech and HealthTech companies of 50 to 500 staff, and a benchmark figure is only stated where at least five comparable companies stand behind it, a threshold kn0w applies as k=5. A member reads their position against real peers, and no peer is identifiable from what any member sees.
04 · UK regulatory context
The FCA states that it does not plan to introduce extra regulations for AI, relying instead on existing frameworks, with an approach it describes as principles-based and focused on outcomes. Its AI Update, which sets out how existing rules apply to AI, highlights the Consumer Duty and senior manager accountability under the SM&CR among the frameworks relevant to safe use. The FCA's position is published at AI and the FCA: our approach, current as at February 2026.
The Statement maps a member's evidence to the instruments that apply to it, which for UK FinTech includes the SM&CR, the Consumer Duty, SYSC 15A and the UK GDPR. The mapping is kn0w's, recorded in the Statement; interpretation of how any rule applies to a specific firm stays with the firm's counsel.
05 · Frequently asked questions
No. The FCA applies its existing rules to AI. An independent audit is one way a firm produces evidence of how its AI is governed before a board, a customer or a supervisor asks for it.
kn0w operates in AWS London (eu-west-2) alongside AWS Sydney (ap-southeast-2). Anonymisation in the peer benchmark is applied at k=5.
Pricing is published at kn0w.co/pricing.
A sample is published at kn0w.co/sample-statement. A first read of where a company stands is available at the AI Accountability Gap.
Published 24 August 2026. Verified against FCA published materials and kn0w canon on 24 August 2026.