The above-mentioned reply stated: "The same rationale applies to ancillary services provided by an entity, depending on whether such ancillary services are regulated financial services or a service inseparable from, indivisible from, preparatory or necessary for the provision of a regulated financial service, and are not provided in a standalone manner." This allows for interpretations based on the following questions: What role does it play in classifying a service as a regulated financial service if the contracting party and the provider of the service are different? What role does it play if either only the contracting party or the provider is a regulated financial undertaking, or if IT infrastructure (already covered by a DORA agreement) by another ICT provider is used for a service?

This question has been rejected because it is unclear.