At A-Team Group’s recent RegTech Summit in London, speakers described reporting operations dependent on manual workarounds, conflicting transaction data and knowledge held by a handful of people. Maintaining those corrective processes consumes resources that firms need for regulatory change.
RegTech Summit New York on 19 November will bring that challenge into focus. Its reporting programme connects remediation with regulatory priorities and architecture decisions, giving attendees a basis for examining where their firms should invest.
The practical test extends beyond correcting a submission. Can your firm establish what caused the error, identify every affected report and demonstrate that its controls prevent recurrence?
Breaking the Cycle
Andrew Pinnington, Chief Customer Officer at Novatus, will deliver “Breaking the remediation & back reporting cycle”. The keynote provides a focal point for firms assessing their dependence on corrective work.
A workaround can protect reporting accuracy while a firm schedules an upstream change. It also creates an obligation to maintain the correction, monitor its performance and preserve the knowledge required to operate it. Firms need to distinguish a controlled interim measure from a process that has become dependent on permanent intervention.How much effort goes into investigating exceptions and correcting historical reports? Which defects require repeated intervention? Who has authority to change the source data or reporting logic?
The investment case for change should account for the operating cost of the remediation cycle. The ROI should also count the opportunity costs and risk of failing to keep pace with regulatory change.
Reporting Priorities
The panel “Regulatory reporting: Today’s challenges” will examine readiness, reporting simplification, US reporting developments, buy-versus-build decisions and artificial intelligence (AI). Participants include Brett Utnick of Nomura and Peter Justini of Hudson River Trading.
Those topics put remediation decisions in a broader planning context. A firm choosing between internal development and a reporting provider needs to assess how each option supports investigation and change. Who maintains the rules? What evidence explains a reported value? How does the firm test a release against existing obligations?
The London discussions illustrated the difficulty of answering those questions when separate services produce conflicting versions of the same transaction. Different regimes can require different representations, but firms need to explain each difference and trace it to an approved rule.
Attendees can use the New York discussion to compare those requirements with their own procurement and implementation criteria. Delivery capacity matters, but so does the ability to investigate a discrepancy without reconstructing the process from spreadsheets and individual recollections.
Architecture Choices
Ban Ghosh, Director of Technology Strategy at Scotiabank, will host the roundtable “Building Agile RegTech and Reporting Architectures Across Global Regulatory Regimes”, addressing jurisdictional divergence and preparation for regulatory change.
The roundtable offers a setting to discuss the architectural constraints behind corrective work. Firms can bring questions about shared data definitions, changes to reporting logic and the controls they need during migration.
London speakers placed transparency, exception handling and replay capability among the requirements for reporting oversight. Those capabilities give teams a means to trace a defect and test revised logic against affected transactions. Migration plans must also accommodate controls across parallel systems.
For firms considering an architecture change, the challenge is to specify those requirements before approving the investment. Moving data onto a common platform leaves conflicting definitions unresolved unless the project addresses them.
Bring your Challenge
The structured and unstructured data panel will also examine lineage, governance and quality controls. Together, these sessions give reporting leaders an opportunity to connect their immediate remediation workload with decisions about data, technology and ownership.
Bring a concrete example from your reporting operation: a recurring correction, a defect awaiting an upstream fix or a control whose effectiveness you struggle to demonstrate. Use the discussions to examine what would remove that dependency and what evidence would justify closing the remediation.
Join RegTech Summit New York on 19 November 2026 to hear how leading industry practitioners are addressing the Reporting Remediation Cycle, and network with your reporting, compliance and technology peers.
View the agenda and book your place HERE.
Subscribe to our newsletter
