AI Hallucination Research › Audiences › Practitioners › United States › Lawyers › Detail › Finding
Practitioners — Lawyers · updated 2026-06-11
Share / Print Twitter LinkedIn Email

Finding#13 . Wrong Source Credit history for 7 USC 6n

RLB Citation ID: RLB-F-US-CFTC-CPO-CTA-REGULATION-4-7-QEP-THRESHOLDS-2024-Q028
What the RLB Specialist Panel found

Finding#13 . Wrong Source Credit history for 7 USC 6n

  • Citation ID: RLB-H-US-CFTC-CPO-CTA-REGULATION-4-7-QEP-THRESHOLDS-2024-Q028-Opus47
  • AI's failure: AI misstated the statutory Source Credit, naming Pub. L. citations the statute does not list
  • Risk for the Lawyers: Treatise-grade legal-history exposure where the statutory amendment chain is reproduced incorrectly For lawyers working on CFTC Regulation 4.7 matters, the AI's stated answer reads as a verbatim quotation that a practitioner would paste into a memo, register entry, or client deliverable before verification against the source. The regulator's own text, however, records a different position. The 7 USC 6n Source Credit reads: '(Sept. 21, 1922, ch. 369, paragraph 4n, as added Pub. L. 93-463, title II, paragraph 205(a), Oct. 23, 1974, 88 Stat. 1398; amended Pub. L. 95-405, paragraph 9, Sept. 30, 1978, 92 Stat. 870; Pub. L. 97-444, title II, paragraph 213, Jan. 11, 1983, 96 Stat. 2305.)' Opus 4.7 reported a Source Credit that includes Pub. L. 102-546 (1992), Pub. L. 106-554 (2000), and Pub. L. 111-203 (2010) and omits Pub. L. 97-444 (1983). The model has reconstructed the statutory amendment chain from general knowledge about CPO/CTA regulatory history rather than retrieved the actual Source Credit; the result is a treatise-grade error in a verbatim-citation task. For a lawyer drafting on this question, the immediate risk is that the AI's answer enters a client memo, board briefing, or transactional opinion without verification, and that the inconsistency surfaces later under counterparty review, regulatory inquiry, or internal QC.
  • see this finding ->
References — raw findings (per AI model)
← Previous finding Finding#12 . Wrong statutory recordkeeping period under 7 USC 6n(3)(A) Next finding → Finding#14 . Wrong Source Credit history for 7 USC 6n (Sonnet 4.6)
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-US-CFTC-CPO-CTA-REGULATION-4-7-QEP-THRESHOLDS-2024-Q028
Bluebook / OSCOLA (US + UK legal) Download 
RegLeg Specialist Panel, Finding#13 . Wrong Source Credit history for 7 USC 6n [RLB-F-US-CFTC-CPO-CTA-REGULATION-4-7-QEP-THRESHOLDS-2024-Q028], RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research (June 11, 2026), https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j3/us/cftc/cpo-cta-regulation-4-7-qep-thresholds-2024/practitioners/lawyers/finding/US-CFTC-US-001-CPO-CTA-REGULATION-4-7-QEP-THRESHOLDS-2024-v1-028/.
Plain text Download 
RegLeg Specialist Panel (2026). "Finding#13 . Wrong Source Credit history for 7 USC 6n — Practitioners — Lawyers." Citation ID: RLB-F-US-CFTC-CPO-CTA-REGULATION-4-7-QEP-THRESHOLDS-2024-Q028. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research, published 2026-06-11. https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j3/us/cftc/cpo-cta-regulation-4-7-qep-thresholds-2024/practitioners/lawyers/finding/US-CFTC-US-001-CPO-CTA-REGULATION-4-7-QEP-THRESHOLDS-2024-v1-028/
APA 7th edition Download 
RegLeg Specialist Panel. (2026). Finding#13 . Wrong Source Credit history for 7 USC 6n [Hallucination finding RLB-F-US-CFTC-CPO-CTA-REGULATION-4-7-QEP-THRESHOLDS-2024-Q028]. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research. https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j3/us/cftc/cpo-cta-regulation-4-7-qep-thresholds-2024/practitioners/lawyers/finding/US-CFTC-US-001-CPO-CTA-REGULATION-4-7-QEP-THRESHOLDS-2024-v1-028/
BibTeX Download 
@misc{reglegbrief_RLB_F_US_CFTC_CPO_CTA_REGULATION_4_7_QEP_THRESHOLDS_2024_Q028,
  author    = {RegLeg Specialist Panel},
  title     = {Finding#13 . Wrong Source Credit history for 7 USC 6n},
  year      = {2026},
  publisher = {RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research},
  note      = {Hallucination finding Citation ID: RLB-F-US-CFTC-CPO-CTA-REGULATION-4-7-QEP-THRESHOLDS-2024-Q028},
  url       = {https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j3/us/cftc/cpo-cta-regulation-4-7-qep-thresholds-2024/practitioners/lawyers/finding/US-CFTC-US-001-CPO-CTA-REGULATION-4-7-QEP-THRESHOLDS-2024-v1-028/}
}
← 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.