The ForeignExchange Professionals Association (FXPA) now defines FX spread grids asindicative pricing tools, not firm quotes or contractual benchmarks. A new FMIntelligence analysis takes that redefinition and asks the harder question: howfar can the price a client actually gets drift from the published grid, and whoabsorbs the difference.The full analysis is on the FMIntelligence DataLab portal.The Gap Between the Gridand the FillFXPApublished its guidance on June 29, a move FinanceMagnates.com reported at the time. FM Intelligence builds on it witha proprietary model, the Grid-to-Fill Gap, tracking the distance between theadvertised grid and the spread a client realizes on execution.Undernormal liquidity, the firm puts that gap near 10%. Under stress, large size, orthin liquidity, its base case widens to roughly 200%, with a high case above300%.FMIntelligence describes these as illustrative modeled estimates, built fromFXPA's own statements rather than a transaction dataset, and revisable as dataarrives.A gapbetween an indicative grid and the fill is expected by construction, notevidence of wrongdoing. A published grid is a symmetric pre-trade reference,while execution is asymmetric. Dealersinternalize about 80% of spot orders, matching client flow in-house, accordingto the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and apply last look and pricing skewof the kind the FX Global Code addressed when the GFXC revised its last-look section. In FMIntelligence's reading, divergence is the model working as designed.Five Readings of OneDocumentTheguidance is largely uncontested, FM Intelligence notes, yet liquidityproviders, trading venues, the data-rich buy side, and conduct regulators eachread it as a win for their own position. The analysis maps all five.Thesimplest reading is the stated one, the firm adds: differing interpretationshad caused disputes, and an industry body clarified definitions to reduce them.FXPA'smembership spans buy-side, sell-side, venue and data firms, so a document thatserves several at once fits a genuine consensus rather than capture by anysingle interest. None of the readings requires bad faith.Where FMIntelligence sees latent risk is narrower, in the distance between a pricingrepresentation and the fill, the same ground older enforcement cases turned on.StateStreet settled for $382.4 million in 2016 over hidden FX markups pairedwith best-execution assurances, and Barclays paid $150 million in 2015 over itslast-look engine. Bothinvolved undisclosed conduct, not a published grid, and FM Intelligencestresses that no action between 2024 and 2026 has targeted dealer pricingagainst an advertised grid. The analysis names no current firm.Who Measures the PriceNextEvery pushto benchmark on realized data rather than the grid shifts attention toward thevenues and analytics firms that measure fills, a shift visible in tie-ups suchas TD Securities and Tradefeedr. FMIntelligence estimates only about 25% of institutional FX participants runindependent, multi-LP transaction cost analysis today, and projects the shareof execution cost judged mainly on realized data rising toward 62% by 2027 inits base case, a scenario it presents with bull and bear ranges rather than asa certainty.Thefull breakdown, including the Grid-to-Fill Gap model, the five-reading map, andthe adoption scenarios, is on the FM Intelligence DataLab portal.This article was written by Damian Chmiel at www.financemagnates.com.