Product and business development at a payment institution writes its FPS-corridor expansion thesis, its partnership-rationale deck and its investor update against a tight set of CPMI numbers: global FPS count, cross-border-enabled subset, planning-pipeline figure, central-bank-versus-private operator mix. Two AI failures on this regulation hit that exact set from opposite directions. Opus 4.7 compresses the universe to 57 and drops the operator-mix breakdown; Sonnet 4.6 holds the 70-plus headline but denies the operator-mix percentages exist. The Tara Rice November 2023 speech (sp231115) supplies the full set.
A product narrative built off either AI answer walks into the MD or investor review with the wrong addressable universe and no operator-type evidence.
What the AI got wrong, and why it matters here
The two failures cancel each other if anyone reads both, but each on its own corrupts the product narrative in a different way. Neither has a downstream check before the deck ships.
Finding 1: FPS universe compressed and operator mix dropped
Opus 4.7 cited the 2025 monitoring survey at 57 operational FPS with no operator-type breakdown. sp231115 gives 70-plus operational, 14 cross-border-enabled, 24 in the planning pipeline, 40% central-bank and 35% private operator mix. A PI product narrative built on the AI answer understates the addressable universe and drops the operator-mix line.
Citation: RLB-H-INT-BIS-CPMI-API-HARMONISATION-CROSS-BORDER-2024-Q010-Opus47.
Finding 2: Operator-mix denied
Sonnet 4.6 cited the 70-plus FPS headline correctly and denied that a precise central-bank-versus-private operator percentage is enumerated in the Brief 10 summary. sp231115 names 40% central-bank and 35% private. The denial removes the operator-mix evidence the partnership-rationale slide needs.
Citation: RLB-H-INT-BIS-CPMI-API-HARMONISATION-CROSS-BORDER-2024-Q010-Sonnet46.
When this hits the product calendar
Product and bizdev pulls CPMI material on four standing artefacts: the FPS-corridor expansion thesis, the partnership-rationale deck, the build-versus-license tradeoff write-up, and the investor or board update.
| Standing artefact | Where the AI risk surfaces | Failure mode |
|---|---|---|
| FPS-corridor expansion thesis | FPS count, planning-pipeline figure | Finding 1 |
| Partnership-rationale deck | Operator-mix percentages | Findings 1 and 2 |
| Build-versus-license tradeoff write-up | Operator mix as decision input | Finding 2 |
| Investor or board update | All four anchors | Findings 1 and 2 |
Aggregate impact on the team
Both failures hit the same three slides in the product pack. Neither is caught by a deck reviewer who is not already holding the sp231115 numbers in mind.
| Risk Impact | Count | Affected findings |
|---|---|---|
| 0 |
What this team should do
Treat the FPS-landscape paragraph in any AI-drafted product deck as a controlled output. It must be verified against sp231115 and the latest CPMI cross-border-payments monitoring brief before it sits behind a partner-rationale or build-versus-license recommendation.
Detection patterns to add to AI-review
- FPS counts must trace to sp231115 or to a numbered CPMI brief.
- Operator-mix denial must be cross-checked against sp231115 directly.
How RLB can help
RLB tracks AI failures on d224, the CPMI brief series and the Tara Rice November 2023 speech, refreshed against live AI subjects on rotation. PI product teams can wire the catalogue into the deck-draft review step so the FPS-landscape paragraph never reaches MD or investor review without a primary-source check.