Hallucination findings aggregated by profession. Each case study covers one (jurisdiction × profession) cell and draws on all regulations in that jurisdiction that touch the profession.
Last updated 14 Jun 2026 · Full ledger: Hallucination Register · Sibling: Sectors · AI Labs
AI tools consistently misstate the FCA's Consumer Duty requirements — substituting incorrect legal thresholds and inverting the regulator's stated obligations — creating direct...
AI tools consistently misstate, omit, or directly contradict core Consumer Duty provisions — including the scope of the retail customer definition, the foreseeable harm rule,...
AI tools tested on Consumer Duty directly contradicted the FCA's express exclusion for group insurance distribution, meaning an Insurance Agent relying on that answer could...
AI tools tested on Consumer Duty questions consistently dropped critical legal qualifiers, invented binding rule references, reversed explicit regulatory exclusions, and...
AI tools systematically misstate the legal threshold under the Consumer Duty's foreseeable harm provision, replacing the FCA's single reasonable-belief qualifier with a...
AI tools fabricated a non-existent MAS notice designation for financial holding companies by analogy from the bank notice number, creating a risk that Accountants (CA/PA)...
AI tools fabricate specific MAS notice designations and mischaracterise document-level drafting conventions in MAS Notice 637 with apparent confidence, creating a risk that...
AI tools fabricated a specific MAS notice designation for financial holding companies by combining a known notice number with a legislative abbreviation, a type of confident,...