Practitioners — Lawyers · Last updated 11 Jun 2026 · Hallucination Register

Finding#8 . 2016 guidance presented as unrevised in 2026, missing the May 2026 consultation

RLB Citation ID: RLB-F-INT-BIS-CPMI-IOSCO-CYBER-RESILIENCE-FMI-2016-Q022

AI's failure:Outdated Risk for Lawyers:Wrong deliverable on cybersecurity framework alignment

What the RLB Specialist Panel found

Finding#8 . 2016 guidance presented as unrevised in 2026, missing the May 2026 consultation

Citation ID: RLB-H-INT-BIS-CPMI-IOSCO-CYBER-RESILIENCE-FMI-2016-Q022-Opus47
AI's failure: AI missed an active CPMI-IOSCO consultation on revised guidance
Risk for the Lawyers: Professional indemnity exposure on cyber programme opinion letters and advisory work For lawyers advising on whether the 2016 guidance is the operative international standard, missing the May 2026 CPMI-IOSCO consultative document produces an opinion that misstates the live regulatory state. An opinion letter or memo that records the 2016 guidance as standing without active revision carries direct PI exposure where the deliverable is used to support board decisions on programme investment or regulator engagement.
see this finding ->

Impact for Lawyers in international jurisdictions advising on the Guidance on Cyber Resilience for Financial Market Infrastructures (CPMI-IOSCO 2016)

For lawyers advising on whether the 2016 guidance is the operative international standard, missing the May 2026 CPMI-IOSCO consultative document produces an opinion that misstates the live regulatory state. An opinion letter or memo that records the 2016 guidance as standing without active revision carries direct PI exposure where the deliverable is used to support board decisions on programme investment or regulator engagement.

References — raw findings (per AI model)

RLB-H-INT-BIS-CPMI-IOSCO-CYBER-RESILIENCE-FMI-2016-Q022-Opus47 Claude Opus 4.7 (web search on)
RLB-H-INT-BIS-CPMI-IOSCO-CYBER-RESILIENCE-FMI-2016-Q022-Sonnet46 Claude Sonnet 4.6 (web search on)

This finding also affects

← Previous finding Finding#7 . FSB Cyber Lexicon derivation claim added beyond the source text Next finding → Finding#9 . 2016 guidance presented as ongoing monitoring only, missing the May 2026 consultative document

Cite this finding

Each finding has a stable Citation ID (RLB-F-… for aggregated case-study findings, RLB-H-… for raw per-model hallucinations) — like a DOI, the ID always resolves to the canonical finding even if URLs change.

RLB Citation ID: RLB-F-INT-BIS-CPMI-IOSCO-CYBER-RESILIENCE-FMI-2016-Q022

Bluebook / OSCOLA (US + UK legal) Download

RegLeg Specialist Panel, Finding#8 . 2016 guidance presented as unrevised in 2026, missing the May 2026 consultation [RLB-F-INT-BIS-CPMI-IOSCO-CYBER-RESILIENCE-FMI-2016-Q022], RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research (June 11, 2026), https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j1/INT/BIS-CPMI/CPMI-IOSCO-CYBER-RESILIENCE-FMI-2016/practitioners/lawyers/finding/INT-BIS-CPMI-INT-001-CPMI-IOSCO-CYBER-RESILIENCE-FMI-2016-v1-022/.

Plain text Download

RegLeg Specialist Panel (2026). "Finding#8 . 2016 guidance presented as unrevised in 2026, missing the May 2026 consultation — Practitioners — Lawyers." Citation ID: RLB-F-INT-BIS-CPMI-IOSCO-CYBER-RESILIENCE-FMI-2016-Q022. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research, published 2026-06-11. https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j1/INT/BIS-CPMI/CPMI-IOSCO-CYBER-RESILIENCE-FMI-2016/practitioners/lawyers/finding/INT-BIS-CPMI-INT-001-CPMI-IOSCO-CYBER-RESILIENCE-FMI-2016-v1-022/

APA 7th edition Download

RegLeg Specialist Panel. (2026). Finding#8 . 2016 guidance presented as unrevised in 2026, missing the May 2026 consultation [Hallucination finding RLB-F-INT-BIS-CPMI-IOSCO-CYBER-RESILIENCE-FMI-2016-Q022]. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research. https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j1/INT/BIS-CPMI/CPMI-IOSCO-CYBER-RESILIENCE-FMI-2016/practitioners/lawyers/finding/INT-BIS-CPMI-INT-001-CPMI-IOSCO-CYBER-RESILIENCE-FMI-2016-v1-022/

BibTeX Download

@misc{reglegbrief_RLB_F_INT_BIS_CPMI_IOSCO_CYBER_RESILIENCE_FMI_2016_Q022,
  author    = {RegLeg Specialist Panel},
  title     = {Finding#8 . 2016 guidance presented as unrevised in 2026, missing the May 2026 consultation},
  year      = {2026},
  publisher = {RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research},
  note      = {Hallucination finding Citation ID: RLB-F-INT-BIS-CPMI-IOSCO-CYBER-RESILIENCE-FMI-2016-Q022},
  url       = {https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j1/INT/BIS-CPMI/CPMI-IOSCO-CYBER-RESILIENCE-FMI-2016/practitioners/lawyers/finding/INT-BIS-CPMI-INT-001-CPMI-IOSCO-CYBER-RESILIENCE-FMI-2016-v1-022/}
}

← Back to case study summary Case study detail →

About Citation IDs →

Every finding on this page compares an AI subject's account of the rule against the regulator's verbatim text from the regulator's own portal. Both are linked. Each delta, its root causes, and impact analysis are documented and published with immutable Citation IDs.