Forex course/Toolkit/Due diligence scorecards

Broker and prop firm due diligence scorecards

By Jarosław Wasiński • Published: • Updated: • 43 min read

Two separate assessment models, because brokers and prop firms fail in different areas: you check a broker against regulatory records and the safety of client funds, and a prop firm against its own rules, a breach of which can end the programme even without a loss on the account. The broker module has four critical criteria (one “NO” ends the assessment) and ten scored criteria; the prop module calculates a Rule Risk Score of 0–20 from ten questions about the rules. In keeping with this section’s firm principle, you will not find a single company name here — the scorecard assesses CRITERIA that you check yourself in registers and documents; the scorecard code calculates the result in your browser and does not transmit your answers. “I don’t know” is a valid result: it goes on the list of things to check BEFORE making a decision, not afterwards.

Due diligence scorecards — two assessment cards: a broker with critical licensing and fund segregation criteria, and a prop firm with a rule risk score
The essentials in 60 seconds
  • Broker: disqualifying criteria first, points second — a licence verified in the regulator’s register (not on the broker’s website), no entry on warning lists, rules for segregating funds, the scope of the applicable compensation scheme and negative balance protection; without all four documented YES answers, there is no positive assessment; additional STOP flags are explained alongside the results
  • Prop: assess the rules, not the marketing — the type of drawdown (intraday trailing drawdown from peak equity can narrow the available buffer), consistency rules, the firm’s right to change the rules retroactively and discretionary clauses such as the “spirit of the programme”
  • “I don’t know” counts as missing information: an unchecked criterion earns no point and, for critical criteria, prevents a positive verdict — the scorecard turns uncertainty into a concrete task list
  • A high score is a minimum standard of due diligence, not a recommendation: the scorecard identifies reasons to halt the assessment, but does not itself authorise a deposit. Section 12.12 describes the full check: 14 gates, 16 comparison criteria and a protocol for a possible small-amount test. A successful withdrawal does not guarantee subsequent ones

How to use the scorecard

  • Answer using documents and registers, not impressions: each question identifies the source of the answer (the regulator’s register, warning list, agreement, rules or fee schedule). An answer “from memory” or “from the company’s homepage” is precisely an I DON’T KNOW.
  • The order of the broker checks is part of the method: first, the four critical criteria — each NO means rejection in this scorecard, regardless of the supplementary point total, while I DON’T KNOW on a critical criterion prevents a positive verdict until it has been checked. Only four YES answers open the scoring stage.
  • The prop module scores RULE risk, not the quality of the offer: a firm may be reliable yet have terms with high rule risk — in that case, you know that passing depends on more than your trading. Before completing it, read 12.11 — especially the discussion of drawdown types.
  • Answers and notes are saved in this browser, provided storage is available. The message beside the module confirms a successful save or an error; the result is calculated from your current answers. Each module stores one entity at a time: before assessing another, print the scorecard or save it as a PDF, then use “Clear module”. The scorecard code does not transmit these fields, but localStorage is not an encrypted vault: scripts on this website and people using this browser profile can access it. Do not enter logins, account numbers or personal data. On a shared device, use a blank paper scorecard.

Scope: the broker module is an abbreviated scorecard for a retail client assessing a CFD account in the country where they are served. It is not the full list of 14 gates in 12.12 or a universal test for futures accounts, professional accounts or every jurisdiction. Record your country of residence, the contracting entity’s jurisdiction, and the account and instrument type. The prop module covers paid evaluation programmes and the rules of the subsequent stage; “funded” may mean a simulated account rather than an account containing company funds entrusted to you. Legal status depends on the actual service, not the prop label. This scorecard deliberately requires the safeguards in K3 and K4: confirmed absence means NO, even where the service may be lawful without them; unverified coverage means I DON’T KNOW. Do not treat a failed gate as a legal ruling.

Evidence for every answer: enter the register address or document title, clause/page number, version and date checked. In the scorecard’s date field, enter the date you completed the assessment; if information comes from different days, add the date beside the relevant criterion. The tool does not automatically verify what you enter. A missing source or an I DON’T KNOW answer prevents a full assessment. Answers saved in an older version require you to reread the criteria and confirm them at the bottom of the scorecard.

Broker due diligence process: warnings, registers, documents and the full gates in 12.12, a possible small-amount test, reassessment. No result instructs you to make a deposit. 1. Warning listsrelevant regulators 2. Licence registerregulator’s, not broker’s 3. Documentssegregation · costs · agreement 4. Possible testsmall deposit + withdrawal 5. Reassessmentno automatic deposit steps 1–3 include the gates; an unresolved flag halts the assessment before any deposit

Module 1: broker — 4 critical criteria + 10 scored criteria

Appendix G · Due diligence scorecards — broker module · forexmechanics.com/due-diligence-scorecards/ · educational material, not investment advice
Broker assessment answers from registers and documents — not the company’s homepage
K1. Entity, licence and authority to serve clients in your countryCRITICAL Source: KNF entity search (Poland), the appropriate regulator’s register and any applicable cross-border permissions or notification lists. For a UK service, use the FCA Firm Checker or Financial Services Register. Check the legal name, scope of authorisation, current status and authority to serve clients in your country of residence. An FCA/ASIC number alone does not settle that last question. Open the regulator’s website independently of the link supplied by the salesperson; compare the domain and contact details with the entity’s records to rule out a clone. Sources and scope.
K2. No entry on warning listsCRITICAL Source: KNF warning list (Poland) and the warning lists of the relevant regulators in your country and the entity’s jurisdiction; search for both the name and the domain. Read what the warning concerns and the current status of the proceedings: an entry is not a judgment, nor does it always allege a lack of authorisation. Check whether it concerns the entity under review or a clone impersonating it. In this scorecard, a confirmed warning relating to the offer under review halts the assessment. The absence of an entry is not proof of legality or safety.
K3. Segregation of funds + compensation schemeCRITICAL Source: the agreement, local client-asset rules and the relevant compensation scheme’s eligibility rules and participant records. Check the separation of client funds, the scheme’s name, coverage of the specific company and service, client eligibility, limits and exclusions. For a participant in the Polish scheme, the starting point is KDPW; for a UK investment claim, check FSCS eligibility for the specific firm and activity. Neither scheme automatically covers another group company, country or service. Segregation and compensation are different safeguards; they do not cover ordinary trading losses. This gate requires both verified segregation and applicable compensation coverage. If either is confirmed absent, select NO; if coverage is unclear, select I DON’T KNOW. Source.
K4. Negative balance protection for retail clientsCRITICAL Source: the agreement and the applicable local product intervention measure or binding account terms. For retail CFDs, check whether negative balance protection limits liabilities arising from CFD positions to the funds in the relevant CFD account; it does not guarantee a stop-loss price or preservation of the deposit. Do not automatically extend it to futures, professional accounts or another group entity. ESMA’s 2018 intervention was temporary; check the current national measure. UK FCA and Australian ASIC rules have their own scope (official sources). The commercial name of a derivative does not by itself determine whether CFD protections apply. Polish example: KNF decision, point 1(c).
P1. Consistent entity across documents and deposit instructions Check that the same legal name appears in the agreement, execution policy and fee schedule, and that the deposit instructions correspond to that company. A brand name or membership of a regulated group is not enough. If an intermediary handles the payment, its role and authorisation must be documented. An unexplained discrepancy halts the assessment.
P2. Complete public fee schedule: spreads, commissions and swaps Public documents should specify commissions, variable-spread rules, swaps or how they are determined, currency conversion, and account and withdrawal fees. “Spreads from 0.0” does not describe the cost under specific conditions. Record the schedule’s date and the instrument specification; the current spread is checked separately. An unexplained absence of cost rules halts the assessment.
P3. Published order execution policy Read the order execution policy: execution venues and methods, slippage, requotes and circumstances in which orders are rejected. The firm’s obligations arise from the applicable regime; the STP/ECN label does not replace a document. EEA best execution rules are covered in more detail in 12.3. The absence of a verifiable policy halts the assessment.
P4. Result of any deposit and withdrawal test This stage comes AFTER a separate decision and passing all the gates in 12.12. Before testing, select I DON’T KNOW (not yet tested); do not deposit money just to earn a point. Any test involves a small amount, checking order execution within your own risk limit and withdrawing in accordance with the documented conditions. Record the request date, deadline and outcome without account details. An unexplained refusal, a missed deadline or a demand for an additional payment as a condition of withdrawal means STOP; a successful small withdrawal does not guarantee subsequent ones.
P5. Verified history export and complete statement Check the actual history export for the account: trades, dates and time zone, instrument, volume, prices, commissions, swaps and cash flows. MT4/MT5/cTrader does not remove the need to inspect the file; a proprietary platform is not a disadvantage if it provides a complete statement. The CSV or another readable format should feed into the journal (F) and the documentation for tax reporting (14.3).
P6. Clear complaints procedure in the agreement The agreement identifies where to submit complaints, the deadlines and the appropriate dispute resolution route for the entity and your client status. Check the competent local ombudsman or dispute resolution scheme: for example, the Financial Ombudsman in Poland or AFCA membership and jurisdiction in Australia; FIN-NET helps identify the appropriate body for a cross-border dispute in the EEA; it is not itself a single adjudicating body. If the recipient is unclear, clarify this before making a deposit; the procedure in Appendix K requires a real contact.
P7. Demo access and minimum volume fit the test plan Check the demo’s validity and renewal options, along with the minimum volume, volume step and contract value for the selected instruments. The smallest position must fit within your risk limit at the planned stop and costs; a specification of 0.01 lots alone does not establish this. An unlimited demo is convenient, but is neither a condition of safety nor a substitute for observing execution in the real market.
P8. No high-pressure sales practices Pressure to add funds, an “account manager” promising returns or a demand for a transfer to unlock a withdrawal are STOP signals. Check the local rules on incentives for the exact retail CFD service: national EU measures, UK FCA rules and Australian ASIC rules have defined scopes. A Polish example is point 1(d) of the KNF decision; this is not a worldwide ban on every promotion of any financial product. A point total cannot offset an unresolved flag.
P9. Track record and financial statements: the entity has operated for years and publishes results Check when operations began, the continuity of the same company and the available financial statements in the relevant company register (for example, KRS in Poland). Review the financial result, capital and any auditor’s observations to the extent available. A long history helps with the assessment, but neither the age of the brand nor publication alone confirms solvency; a lack of verifiable information means I DON’T KNOW, while confirmed failure to meet the criterion means NO.
P10. Overnight and weekend mechanics documented In the specification for the instrument, check trading and rollover times with the time zone, swap calculations (including multiple-day charges, where applicable), breaks, gaps and dividend adjustments for the relevant CFDs. Not every instrument has triple swaps or dividends. The specification should establish when a rule does not apply; server time need not match your local time zone, and daylight-saving changes may differ.
Scorecard version: 2.0 · Assessed by (optional, on paper): ______________

Module 2: prop firm — Rule Risk Score (0–20)

You score the burden of the rules and selected transparency gaps: 0 = the least burdensome option described, 1 = the intermediate option, 2 = the most burdensome option for that question. Zero does not mean safety. Check the agreement, rules and FAQ for the specific stage (the challenge and subsequent stage may have different rules). If the document does not settle the issue, select I DON’T KNOW; after receiving the firm’s written reply, assess whether it is consistent with the agreement, rather than automatically awarding 1 point. Consistency or Best Day rules are NOT an industry standard with a single definition: what matters is the wording in the specific firm’s rules (12.11).

Appendix G · Due diligence scorecards — prop firm module (Rule Risk Score) · forexmechanics.com/due-diligence-scorecards/ · educational material
Rule Risk Score the author’s scale of rule burden; completeness and flags take priority
R1. Drawdown type Drawdown should be checked separately for the daily and total limits: balance/equity basis, reset and time zone, costs and the consequences of touching the limit. Select the most burdensome of the mechanisms used. Trailing from peak equity that includes open positions can raise the account-loss threshold even if the trade is later closed near break-even. The category alone does not replace calculating the buffer.
R2. Consistency / Best Day Rule Check the exact formula for the best day’s share, denominator, period, treatment of losses and consequence: continued trading until the ratio is met, a delayed payout or loss of the programme. Different firms and stages may use different definitions. A missing document means I DON’T KNOW; vague wording actually present in the document means 2 points.
R3. Changes to the rules Check whether changes apply only to new programmes or also to the ongoing one; distinguish prospective changes from changes to the assessment of trades already executed. Record the notice period and the option to withdraw. A provision allowing retroactive changes, or changes at any time without clear limits, is a STOP flag in this scorecard, regardless of the total.
R4. Number of rules restricting the strategy Count distinct active restrictions: overnight/weekend holding, news, maximum volume or number of positions, grid/martingale, EAs and mandatory SL. Do not count the same prohibition several times because it appears in both the FAQ and the rules. The number indicates complexity, not severity; even one rule may exclude your strategy. You confirm compatibility separately at the bottom of the scorecard.
R5. Payout rules Check the schedule, minimum amount, profit share, first payout, payout limits and the drawdown buffer remaining after a payout. If several answers apply, choose the highest score. This criterion covers payout conditions, while R6 covers the payout fee. A discretionary refusal without clear criteria is a STOP flag.
R6. Fees beyond the challenge price Add up the costs of entry, resets, data, the platform, activation and payouts for the planned route. Where conditions overlap, choose the highest-scoring option. No payout fee does not offset a hidden activation fee; an unavailable fee schedule means I DON’T KNOW.
R7. Entity and jurisdiction Establish the full legal name, register, address, governing law, and complaints and dispute resolution routes. An offshore jurisdiction alone does not prove fraud, but difficulties with verification and enforcing claims matter. A simulated programme does not become a brokerage account because it is labelled “funded”; another group company’s licence does not automatically cover it. Inability to establish the counterparty’s identity means STOP. Source on the simulated model.
R8. Company age and payout history Check the age of the same company and the available payout evidence: anonymous screenshots and affiliate accounts are not independent confirmation. Challenge fees may be company revenue, but that model alone does not prove a pyramid scheme or insolvency. History does not guarantee future payouts. The age thresholds below are conventional bands used by this scorecard, not findings from a study of bankruptcy risk.
R9. Business model transparency Does the firm explain what is simulated, what may be routed to the market, how it funds remuneration and what obligations it has towards the participant? A description of the model is not a financial audit. The absence of a description does not prove that challenge fees are the only revenue; assess transparency, not presumed money flows.
R10. Discretionary clauses Check clauses referring to the “spirit of the programme”, “gambling behavior” or “toxic trading”: are the prohibited behaviour, how it is established, the penalty and the appeal procedure clearly defined? A definition need not be numerical to be precise. An open-ended right to invalidate a result that complies with the stated rules, without verifiable criteria, is a STOP flag, even at 2/20.
Scorecard version: 2.0 · Assessment details and documents: in the fields above
Printed prop programme rules with highlighted clauses on trailing drawdown, rule changes and the spirit of the programme, beside a Rule Risk Score card with calculated risk points
Printed prop programme rules with highlighted clauses on trailing drawdown, rule changes and the spirit of the programme, beside a Rule Risk Score card with calculated risk points

Thresholds and interpretation of results

Explicit weights and limitations. Each YES in P1–P10 earns 1 point; NO and I DON’T KNOW earn 0. K1–K4 add no points and take priority. In the prop module, add up the values of the selected R1–R10 options, each worth at most 2 points, for a total of 0–20. The bands 0–5, 6–11 and 12–20, and the broker thresholds of 5 and 8, are editorial conventions without empirical calibration. They do not specify the probability of fraud, bankruptcy, passing a programme or receiving a payout. Some criteria are related (e.g. R5 and R10); the total helps organise your reading, rather than measure independent risks.

Halting the assessment takes priority. For brokers, NO in K1–K4 rejects the offer in this scorecard; NO in P1/P2/P3/P4/P6/P8 suspends further assessment until documents, withdrawals or sales practices have been clarified. For prop firms, a value of 2 in R3/R5/R7/R10, or incompatibility between the strategy and the rules, means STOP regardless of the total. This is a conservative rule of this tool, not a ruling on the firm’s legality. Next, check that the answers, evidence, assessment details and confirmation are complete; only a complete scorecard allows the score band to be described. Because there are six broker STOP flags, a complete scorecard without such a flag scores at least 6/10; lower totals provide only supplementary information when the assessment has been halted.

Check examples: all zeros except R7 = 2 produce 2/20 and STOP, not a low risk level. For a broker, four YES answers, nine points and P4 = NO produce 9/10 and a suspended assessment. If P4 = I DON’T KNOW before any test, the other nine YES answers mean 9/10 for scored answers and an incomplete assessment; do not make a deposit to “complete” the form. With unknown answers, the prop module shows only the range of possible totals, without assigning a category.

ModuleConditionInterpretation
BrokerK1–K4: any NORejection in this scorecard. Other points do not override a critical criterion; do not test by making a deposit.
BrokerNO in P1/P2/P3/P4/P6/P8STOP — clarify the flag. Concerns documents, costs, execution, withdrawals, complaints or pressure. Do not add funds to resolve a withdrawal problem.
BrokerAny I DON’T KNOW / missing answer, evidence or assessment detailsIncomplete assessment. The list of gaps is a plan for further verification. P4 remains unknown before any test; a regulator’s or firm’s response time cannot be guaranteed.
BrokerTotal: 8–10 / 5–7 / 0–4 points, subject to the gatesHigh / partial / low coverage of criteria. The thresholds describe the number of YES answers, but the final result still depends on flags and gaps. The list of NO answers remains visible. Even 10/10 does not replace the 14 gates in 12.12 and does not recommend making a deposit or adding funds.
PropR3/R5/R7/R10 = 2 or incompatible strategySTOP — overriding flag. Do not average it out with favourable answers. Keep the document and clarify the clause before paying a fee.
PropMissing answer / I DON’T KNOW / missing evidence or assessment detailsIncomplete assessment. A range of totals with missing information is not a risk assessment. A blank scorecard means no data, not 0/20.
PropComplete scorecard without STOP: 0–5 pointsLower burden on this scale. Does not establish the firm’s solvency or honesty, or the programme’s legality; assess the model and its economic merits separately.
PropComplete scorecard without STOP: 6–11 pointsGreater rule burden. Analyse the identified restrictions and the cost of the entire route, including resets, against your own spending limit.
PropComplete scorecard without STOP: 12–20 pointsHigh rule burden. Accumulated restrictions make the strategy harder to implement; however, the total does not prove that each flag independently invalidates the result.

FAQ

Why does the scorecard give neither company names nor a ranking?

For two firm reasons. First, the toolkit section has no affiliate arrangements and does not recommend entities — a ranking, even if fair on its publication date, ages faster than criteria (licences are revoked, rules change, companies move offshore), and readers treat it as a recommendation. Second, the ability to verify information independently in registers is more important than any ready-made list — companies change, but the method remains. The scorecard provides criteria and sources; you enter the name yourself and bear responsibility for the decision.

How does broker due diligence differ from prop firm due diligence?

In the main source of risk. You hold YOUR money with a broker, so the questions concern supervision, segregation of funds and the compensation scheme — matters that can be checked in public registers. In a prop programme, you pay for an evaluation service or access; even the stage labelled “funded” may be simulated. Remuneration conditions arise from the agreement, not from a client deposit balance. Check the drawdown type, discretionary clauses, rule changes, counterparty and jurisdiction. Do not assign broker-client protection to the programme or assume that every activity labelled prop is outside supervision: the service’s structure matters. That is why the broker module examines the account’s regulatory framework and protection of funds, while the prop module organises the contractual rules and their compatibility with the strategy.

I have many “I don’t know” answers. What should I do?

Treat them as a result — because that is what they are. Every I DON’T KNOW on the scorecard is a specific task with an identified source: a register, warning list, agreement, fee schedule or rules. There is no guaranteed time for completing all checks: some questions can be settled from a document, while others require written clarification. Record the missing information, source and question for the relevant entity. A document’s silence or contradictory answers cannot be converted into YES or 0 prop points. For a broker, an unknown criterion earns no point and leaves the assessment incomplete even when the total is high. For a prop firm, an unknown answer widens the range of possible totals and prevents classification; a confirmed problem is assessed separately according to the option’s description.

A high broker score and a low prop Rule Risk Score — does that mean safety?

No. The result describes your answers as of a particular date; it does not certify the entity or measure the probability of a payout. For a broker, only the full gates in 12.12 and a separate decision can precede any small-amount test, order execution and withdrawal; a successful test does not justify automatically increasing the deposit. A low prop total does not override a STOP flag, missing evidence or a rule incompatible with the strategy. The cost calculations and pass-rate examples in 12.11 are a separate analysis — do not treat an illustrative probability as data for your own programme. Repeat verification after a change in the company, licence, client status or rules; saving answers does not make them up to date.

Illustrative scenario: a licence copied by a clone. The mechanism described in FCA warnings: a “broker’s” website displays a licence number from a respected regulator and a logo in the footer. Entering the number in the register’s search returns… a different company — with a similar name but a different address; the clone impersonates the licensed entity. The number itself may belong to a real firm, so compare the domain, address and contact details too. If they differ, contact the firm using details obtained independently from the register. This is the basis for criterion K1: matching identity and authorisation matter more than forum opinions. The scenario does not describe a test carried out by the author or a guaranteed verification time.
Illustrative scenario: a refusal based on the “spirit of the programme”. A premise for analysing an agreement, not an account of a specific dispute: a trader passes the challenge without breaching any numerical limit — the month’s result comes from two strong moves following central bank releases. The firm refuses a payout: the result is “too concentrated” and inconsistent with the “spirit of the programme”; the rules define neither concentration nor spirit. In the scorecard, this is R10 — a single flag worth 2 points, deliberately without an intermediate option: open-ended discretion means STOP regardless of the total. Precise rules can be descriptive, not only numerical; you must be able to establish what constitutes a breach and how to appeal. If these conditions cannot be confirmed, leave I DON’T KNOW and keep the firm’s written explanation. Reading the rules alone does not guarantee a payout.

Related course material

Disclaimer: this page is educational and does not constitute investment or legal advice. The scorecard organises your own verification — it does not assess any specific entity, and the result reflects only your answers as of the assessment date; the entity’s documents and applicable national regulations may change. Choosing a broker or prop programme and accepting the consequences remain your decision.
Appendix G to the Forex course · version 2.0 · updated: 20 September 2026

Sources

  1. Poland: KNF — entity search and warning list. Positively verify the register entry and scope of authorisation; the absence of a warning does not confirm safety. What the list means: KNF explanation of Article 6b. K1–K2; sources checked on 18 September 2026, but the specific entry must be read on the date of your own assessment.
  2. KNF Decision No DAS.456.2.2019 of 1 August 2019 (PDF), point 1(c)–(d): negative balance protection for CFD accounts and restrictions on benefits for retail clients within the decision’s scope. K4/P8; accessed on 18 September 2026. In another country or for another product, check the applicable regime rather than automatically applying this condition.
  3. Poland: KDPW — compensation scheme and list of participants. K3: scope of protection, eligibility and the relevant entity; sources checked on 18 September 2026. For another scheme, read its own rules.
  4. FCA — Forex trading scams: copying the details of authorised firms and the need to verify contact details independently; accessed on 18 September 2026. A source on the clone mechanism, not proof of authorisation to serve clients in your country.
  5. FSMA — warning about the prop model using demo accounts, 7 March 2024; accessed on 18 September 2026. Describes the simulated model and remuneration’s dependence on the agreement; it is not a legal classification of every programme worldwide.
  6. European Commission — FIN-NET: a network for out-of-court resolution of financial disputes in the EEA, including cross-border disputes; accessed on 18 September 2026. P6: identify the appropriate body for the entity and the case.
  7. Internal: 12.12 Broker selection checklist and 12.11 Prop trading. Gate logic, test stages, programme models and rule pitfalls. This scorecard’s scoring and thresholds are the author’s convention described above, not a regulator’s model.
  8. FCA — checking authorisation: verify the firm and its permission for the specific service. K1; checked on 20 September 2026. A licence in one jurisdiction is not universal permission to serve clients elsewhere.
  9. ESMA — national CFD intervention measures and product scope, 24 February 2026; FCA — PS19/18 retail CFD restrictions; ASIC — CFD product intervention order extended to 23 May 2027. K4/P8: negative balance protection and incentive restrictions depend on the applicable measure, product and client status. Checked on 20 September 2026.
  10. FSCS — investment protection: eligibility depends on the firm, regulated activity and claim; ordinary poor investment performance is not covered. K3; checked on 20 September 2026. This is a UK example, not worldwide coverage.
  11. AFCA — financial firm search: check membership and complaint contact details, then the scheme’s jurisdiction for your case. P6; checked on 20 September 2026. This is an Australian route, not a universal ombudsman.

Attach the evidence to the exact firm and service

The scorecard organises answers; it does not perform an independent register search. This fictional file illustrates how a genuine-looking source can answer the wrong question. No actual firm is named, assessed or contacted.

Start with the contracting entity

The proposed agreement names Firm L. A saved official-register extract also names Firm L and the same reference number. Those two identity fields match. However, the extract does not show whether the particular service in the agreement is within the relevant permission. Matching identity is evidence for identity, not an answer about every product or client category. Record the unresolved service question beside the exact source rather than replacing it with a favourable overall impression.

Check the contact route separately

The official record supplies the invented domain l.example. The message accompanying the agreement links to l-access.example. These are different domains. The mismatch needs verification using the independently obtained official route, not a telephone number or link supplied by the same message. The exercise does not establish that the second site is fraudulent or legitimate. It establishes a discrepancy whose resolution is missing. Do not enter credentials or send funds merely to find out whether the record is genuine.

Keep missing evidence visible in the scorecard

Use the tool’s unresolved answer where the evidence does not establish the condition. A high score on other items cannot supply the missing permission or contact verification. The FCA’s official checking guidance distinguishes a firm’s authorisation, the services involved and independent contact checks. Its UK scope must not be turned into a worldwide permission rule. In a real file, use the authorities and procedures relevant to the actual entity and proposed relationship.

Reopen the assessment when the relationship changes

Retain the agreement version, register record, reference, service, domain and date checked. Saving these fields records what was entered, not their truth or continuing validity. If another group entity appears on a revised agreement, the old entity match does not transfer automatically. Record the changed fact and recheck the affected conditions. The output may remain incomplete; that is a useful result with a precise evidence task, not a legal verdict or a probability of recovering money.

Three exercises with explanations

1. What do the matching name and reference establish?

Agreement Firm L; register extract Firm L with the same reference; service scope absent.

  1. A. Every service is authorised worldwide
  2. B. The identity fields match; the service question remains open
  3. C. The agreement cannot need further checking
  4. D. The result predicts withdrawals
Show the answer and explanation

B. Keep the exact source beside the question it answers.

  • A. The evidence supplies no worldwide permission.
  • B. Identity and service scope are distinct questions.
  • C. Other relevant conditions remain unresolved.
  • D. No recovery or withdrawal probability is established.

2. What follows from l.example versus l-access.example?

The first comes from the official record; the second from the accompanying message.

  1. A. They are identical
  2. B. The second is automatically safe
  3. C. Fraud has been legally proved
  4. D. A contact discrepancy requires independent verification
Show the answer and explanation

D. Use independently obtained official contact details, not the disputed message’s route.

  • A. Their hostnames are different.
  • B. Similarity does not establish authenticity.
  • C. A discrepancy alone is not the stated legal finding.
  • D. The domains differ; the file supplies no resolution.

3. Does saving the completed form verify its sources?

The tool records the user’s answers and evidence fields.

  1. A. No; verification and later rechecks remain separate work
  2. B. Yes, browser storage authorises the firm
  3. C. Yes, a high score fills missing facts
  4. D. Yes, the export never ages
Show the answer and explanation

A. Keep unresolved facts and review triggers with the saved assessment.

  • A. A stored answer is a record, not an independent source check.
  • B. Storage has no authorising effect.
  • C. Points cannot create evidence.
  • D. Conditions and agreements can change.

Return to the tool

Jarosław Wasiński

Jarosław Wasiński

Editor-in-chief, ForexMechanics.com • Macro & FX analyst

Independent analyst and practitioner with over 20 years of experience in financial markets. Actively involved in Forex since 2007, with a focus on fundamental analysis, OTC market structure, and disciplined capital risk management.

  • Creator and editor-in-chief of MyBank.pl, providing reliable financial education since 2004.
  • Author of hundreds of in-depth market commentaries, structural analyses, and educational materials for traders and investors.
  • Advocate for market transparency, promoting education grounded in hard data and institutional reports (BIS, ESMA, CFTC).

All content is educational and informational only – it does not constitute investment advice or a recommendation. Remember: leveraged trading (Forex/CFD) carries a high risk of rapid capital loss.