nullfte·

Downloads

Banking agent assessment

Decide what an AI agent may do with your money before the first payment. A checklist and a full assessment, EU and US. Free.

A two-page checklist for one person and their own accounts, and a decision sheet with a workbook for an organisation of any size. Each comes in an EU and a US edition, as a Word file to fill in.

Download

Information only. These files are not legal, financial or other advice and come with no warranty. You are responsible for how you use them. Read the terms of use before you download.

For organisations

  • Banking Agent Assessment, EU edition

    A short decision sheet, plus a workbook with tests, incident steps and a fuller risk and contract review, and a filled-in example. A4.

    Version 3.2 · 26 October 2026

    Download DOCX · 30 KB
  • Banking Agent Assessment, US edition

    The same assessment with US payment rails and obligations, in US spelling. US Letter.

    Version 3.2 · 26 October 2026

    Download DOCX · 30 KB

For individuals

  • Personal checklist, EU edition

    Seven short parts, about two pages, to tick through before an agent gets near your own account. A4.

    Version 3.2 · 26 October 2026

    Download DOCX · 18 KB
  • Personal checklist, US edition

    The same checklist with the US rules that decide who bears a loss. US Letter.

    Version 3.2 · 26 October 2026

    Download DOCX · 18 KB

Found a mistake, or something out of date? Email lorant@nullfte.com. Corrections go into the revision history below.

Software that can reach a bank account is now something people hand to an agent: pay these invoices, watch the account, chase what is late. Setting it up takes minutes. Nobody tells you what to decide first.

Why this exists

An agent that is wrong does not give you a bad answer. It costs money, and some payments cannot be called back. Three ways it can go wrong, each an illustration of a failure mode and not a report of a real case:

Each one is something a test can check before you trust the agent. The assessment has a test for each.

What you get

The files make you settle, in writing and before the first payment:

The outcome is a record of one decision that you can show a bank, an insurer, an auditor or a board. It does not make an agent safe, and it does not tell you whether to use one. It stops the decisions from being made by default.

Which file

The personal checklist is for one person and their own accounts. Seven short parts, about two pages: what the agent is for, the least power to start with, limits that cap a mistake, what to watch, what to do when something goes wrong, points to check with your bank, and your decision. There is nothing to sign. Most of the time goes on finding the limits in your bank’s settings.

The Banking Agent Assessment is for an organisation of any size. The decision sheet is short: the agent, who is involved, the level you will run at, the checks for each level, to mark Done or Planned, and the decision. Everyone runs the ten tests in the workbook, and fills in the incident steps before the agent moves past looking and proposing. A larger or regulated organisation, or anyone whose agent can reach a lot of money, works through the rest of it: what can go wrong and what stops it, rules and contracts, and what to watch. A filled-in example for a fictional small business is at the end, with the checks it has not done yet.

How it works

The agent starts by looking and proposing. It moves up a level only when every check for that level is Done and its tests have passed, and a check you cannot meet is a reason to stay at the lower level. Each check says what makes it hold: a system or credential that makes it impossible to skip, a person who does it, or a contract. Something that exists only as an instruction to the agent does not count. A person answers for the result. The method is the one in my delegation approach. What made me write it is in The banks are blocking AI agents. I let one in.

Rules to check

Checked 26 October 2026. Next check by 26 January 2027, or sooner if a point marked “check” moves. These are pointers to take to your own adviser. They do not say what law applies to you or how it applies, they may be incomplete or out of date, and the ones marked “check” were still moving.

European Union
  • PSD2 and national law. Contains rules on when a payment counts as authorised and on refunds for unauthorised payments (Articles 72 to 74). Whether a payment your agent makes counts, and what your bank’s terms say about sharing credentials, can decide who bears a loss. Read your bank’s payment terms and note the clauses.
  • PSD3 and the Payment Services Regulation (check). Reported to have reached political agreement in November 2025. Sources differ on when it applies, and entry into force was not confirmed on the date above. Reported to change fraud liability and bank interface rules.
  • Instant Payments Regulation (EU) 2024/886. Euro payment providers must offer instant transfers and, from October 2025, a payee-name check (Verification of Payee). Decide whether the agent may use instant payments at all, and treat a “no match” or “close match” as a stop for a person.
  • GDPR. Transaction data names other people. If the agent or its model provider processes it, GDPR may apply: lawful basis, processor terms, transfers outside the EEA, a data protection impact assessment (Art. 35) and rules on decisions based solely on automated processing (Art. 22).
  • EU AI Act (check). Contains an AI-literacy duty (Art. 4), transparency duties (Art. 50) and a list of high-risk uses (Annex III). Application dates were reported to be moving in 2026. A bill-paying agent is probably not on the high-risk list, whereas an agent that evaluates the creditworthiness of individuals could be. Write down how you classified it and have an adviser confirm.
  • DORA. Applies to the financial entities it lists (banks, payment and e-money institutions, insurers, investment firms and others) and, through them, to their ICT providers. If your organisation is one of those entities, the agent and its model provider may be ICT third-party arrangements with register, incident-reporting and testing duties. If it is not, DORA does not apply to you directly, but your bank’s duties under it may shape its terms for you.
  • Sanctions, money laundering and record keeping. Payments to sanctioned parties may breach rules whatever the agent was told, and banks may question accounts with unusual patterns. National law sets how long invoices, approvals and payment records are kept.
United States
  • Regulation E (consumer accounts). Sets liability tiers for unauthorized transfers ($50 or $500, depending on how quickly the consumer reports, plus a 60-day statement rule). Whether a transfer an agent makes counts is unclear: the official commentary treats transfers by someone you gave access to as authorized until you notify the bank. Business accounts are generally not covered.
  • UCC Article 4A (wires and many business transfers). A payment order can bind the customer even if the customer did not authorize it, where the bank verified it under a commercially reasonable security procedure the customer agreed to (§4A-202(b)). The customer’s defence is narrow (§4A-203) and reporting deadlines can be short. Get the bank’s written security procedure.
  • Nacha Operating Rules (ACH). Fraud-monitoring amendments for ACH originators took effect in two phases in 2026 (March and June), including a defined term for payments made under “false pretenses”, which covers vendor impersonation and business email compromise.
  • CFPB open banking rule, §1033 (check). Finalized in 2024. The CFPB’s own page records that a court stayed its compliance dates on 29 October 2025 and that the Bureau is reconsidering it. An agent’s access to your bank data may depend on your bank’s terms.
  • State laws. Several states have privacy or automated-decision rules and some have AI laws, a number of them delayed or being rewritten. List the states where you operate and where your payees and employees are, and check each.
  • OFAC sanctions and money laundering. Sanctions exposure can arise without intent. Regulated institutions carry their own duties.
  • If you are a bank or regulated institution. Model risk guidance (Federal Reserve SR 11-7, OCC 2011-12), your regulator’s third-party risk guidance and the FTC Safeguards Rule may bring the agent into your existing governance.
  • Records. Federal and state rules set how long invoices, approvals and payment records are kept. The NIST AI Risk Management Framework and its Generative AI Profile are voluntary and not law, and may help if your organisation already uses them.

If you work with ISO/IEC 42001

The idea behind the assessment is the one in ISO/IEC 42001: assess each AI system on its own, for the organisation and for the people it can affect. The files do not use the standard’s vocabulary and reproduce none of its text. If you need to map them, this is where each part sits. Confirm the clause numbers against your own copy of the standard.

Where each part sits in the standard
  • The agent and who (A1, A2). Scope, roles and competence: clauses 4.3, 5.3, 7.2 and 7.3; Annex A.3.
  • Levels and checks (A3, A4). Risk treatment and the list of controls with their status: clause 6.1.3; Annex A controls, including A.6 and A.9.
  • What can go wrong (B1). Risk assessment and impact assessment: clauses 6.1.2 and 6.1.4; Annex A.5. ISO/IEC 42005 gives guidance on the impact assessment.
  • Rules and contracts (B2). Context and obligations: clause 4.1; Annex A.2 and A.10.
  • Tests (B3) and watching it (B5). Operational control, monitoring and evaluation: clauses 8.1 and 9.1 to 9.3; Annex A.6.
  • Decision (A5). Top management commitment and acceptance of what is left: clauses 5.1 and 6.1.3.

This is not a certification. The standard certifies an organisation’s management system, not a single system, and completing a template does not make anyone conformant.

What it is not

The files are for people who are going to give an agent access to money anyway, or already have. They are not advice, not a certification or an audit, and not a recommendation to do it; the terms of use set this out in full and are inside every file.

Using and sharing

Free, no sign-up. You may use, adapt and share them, for yourself or in your own business, if you keep the nullfte.com credit and the notice and mark what you changed. Do not present your version as written or endorsed by me, and do not sell them as they are. The terms of use have the details.

Sources

  1. ISO/IEC (2023). ISO/IEC 42001:2023, Information technology — Artificial intelligence — Management system. International Organization for Standardization.

  2. ISO/IEC (2025). ISO/IEC 42005:2025, Information technology — Artificial intelligence — AI system impact assessment. International Organization for Standardization.

  3. National Institute of Standards and Technology (2023). AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0). NIST.

  4. National Institute of Standards and Technology (2024). Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework: Generative Artificial Intelligence Profile (NIST AI 600-1). NIST.

  5. European Parliament and Council (2015). Directive (EU) 2015/2366 on payment services in the internal market (PSD2). EUR-Lex.

  6. Morrison Foerster (2026). PSD3 and the Payment Services Regulation: Key Developments, Timeline, and Action Points for Firms. Morrison Foerster.

  7. European Parliament and Council (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/886 on instant credit transfers in euro (Instant Payments Regulation). EUR-Lex.

  8. European Parliament and Council (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation). EUR-Lex.

  9. European Parliament and Council (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (Artificial Intelligence Act). EUR-Lex.

  10. Sidley Austin (2026). EU Lawmakers Reach Provisional Agreement to Delay Key EU AI Act Obligations. Sidley Austin, Data Matters.

  11. European Parliament and Council (2022). Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 on digital operational resilience for the financial sector (DORA). EUR-Lex.

  12. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Regulation E, 12 CFR 1005.6: Liability of consumer for unauthorized transfers. CFPB.

  13. Uniform Law Commission and American Law Institute. Uniform Commercial Code Article 4A, §4A-202 and §4A-203 (funds transfers). Cornell Legal Information Institute.

  14. Nacha (2026). Nacha Operating Rules: Risk Management Topics, Fraud Monitoring. Nacha.

  15. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Personal Financial Data Rights rule (Section 1033) compliance resources. CFPB.

What each source does and does not establish

Revision history

  1. · First published. Four Word files, version 3.1. Regional legal points checked against official and law-firm sources on this date.
  2. · Version 3.2. Corrections after review. The DORA note no longer suggests a bank might not be a financial entity, the Nacha note says the 2026 changes have taken effect, and the level 1 access check no longer contradicts level 2. The tests and incident steps are marked as needed by everyone, the tests match what each level requires, the two-approver check has a real alternative, and the US editions use US terms and date order throughout.
  3. · Terms of use version 1.2. Clause 9 now says the hardening guide has its own licence. The files’ text is unchanged; the terms on their last page carry the new sentence.
  4. · Added a link to the essay behind the assessment. The files are unchanged.