11/06/2026
Outcome testing isn't struggling because teams aren't putting in the effort. It's falling short because it simply doesn't scale well.
In many advisory firms, outcome testing relies heavily on manual work. Reviewing discussions, checking documents, and validating processes takes a significant amount of time.
So, what does this mean in practice?
Sample sizes are kept small. Not because the firms don’t care, but because they lack the resources for a large compliance and QA team.
This creates an unseen risk.
With only a tiny fraction of cases being reviewed, confidence relies on assumptions rather than real insights. Most cases are likely fine, but "likely" isn’t how we should approach regulated advice.
In this video, Garry discusses why traditional outcome testing struggles to scale and why relying solely on manual QA won't provide firms the assurance they need as caseloads increase.
This isn’t a critique of compliance teams...
It's a fundamental issue that calls for a new approach.