Aveni calls for targeted assurance for AI agents after Mills Review

By Splitfeed EditorialLast updated Oct 12, 2026, 07:50 UTC

On 11 and 12 October 2026, Aveni, an AI financial technology firm, published a position statement responding to the Mills Review and calling for targeted assurance measures specifically designed for AI agents. The statement appeared across several outlets on those dates. Aveni's core argument is that AI agents, which can act autonomously on behalf of users or institutions in financial contexts, need assurance standards built around their particular characteristics rather than being covered by general frameworks that were not designed with them in mind.

The Mills Review provides the regulatory backdrop here. While the full contents of the review are not detailed in the available material, Aveni's response implies the review raised questions about how autonomous AI systems should be governed in financial services, a sector where accountability, explainability and consumer protection carry significant legal weight. The practical dispute is whether existing assurance and compliance frameworks can be adapted to cover AI agents or whether those agents represent a sufficiently distinct category to require new, dedicated standards. That question has real consequences for how firms deploy AI in areas like advice, portfolio management and customer interaction.

None of the three camps, Pro-AI, Anti-AI or Middle Ground, have published reactions to this specific story. Pro-AI voices would typically welcome calls for targeted assurance as a sign that the industry is maturing responsibly, framing clearer standards as something that enables wider and safer deployment rather than restricting it. Anti-AI voices would likely argue that the need for targeted assurance at all confirms that AI agents carry risks that have not been adequately addressed, and may question whether industry actors like Aveni are best placed to define those standards. Middle Ground commentators would probably focus on who conducts the assurance and whether any resulting framework is independent, proportionate and enforceable.

The argument is likely to sharpen as regulators respond to the Mills Review formally. Any consultation period, proposed guidance or regulatory statement that follows the review would give a clearer signal of whether Aveni's call for targeted assurance aligns with the official direction of travel or runs ahead of it.