Same relationship. Different decision.
Seven financial decisions, seven sets of rules, and one thing they all have in common: the person needs to understand it, and the firm needs to be able to show how it was handled.
Pick the one you are in.
A mortgage, a vehicle, a policy, a portfolio, an account, a loan, a home. Different products, different regulators, different rulebooks. The same person, trying to understand what they are agreeing to, and the same firm, trying to show how they handled it.
The decision changes. The relationship does not.
The person has to understand what they are deciding
Before anyone has anything to sell them, and in language they already use.
The person has to check who they are dealing with
Every one of these seven has a public register. Almost nobody knows they exist.
The firm has to explain why this and not that
Regulators in three of these sectors have now said, in writing, that recording the conclusion is not the same as recording the reason.
The firm has to be able to show it later
Usually years later, usually to a person who was not there, and usually from systems that were never joined up.
One architecture, seven decisions.
That is the argument. If it only worked for mortgages it would be a feature. It works the same way in all seven because what it protects is the relationship, not the product.