AI Hallucination Research › Audiences › Sectors › Singapore › Corporate Banking › Risk › Detail › Finding
Corporate Banking × Risk — Singapore · published 2026-05-28 · methodology v2.1

Content of Annex 6C under MAS Notice 637

What the RLB Specialist Panel found

2. Content of Annex 6C under MAS Notice 637

  • Question (paraphrased to protect IP): What does Annex 6C of the consolidated MAS Notice 637 address?
  • Source regulation: MAS Notice 637 — Notice to Banks: Capital Adequacy (Regulator portal: https://www.mas.gov.sg)
  • What AI assistants typically say: The AI stated that Annex 6C addresses standards for a prudent valuation framework, describing it as setting out the methodology and criteria a Reporting Bank must apply when prudently valuing fair-valued financial instruments, including additional valuation adjustments.
  • What the regulator actually says: No regulator excerpt was available for verification at the time of testing; the MAS Notice 637 text, including Annex 6C, is published on the MAS portal at https://www.mas.gov.sg.
  • Why the AI went wrong: The characterisation of Annex 6C as a prudent valuation annex appears to have been constructed from general Basel III framework knowledge — specifically the Basel AVA framework — rather than retrieved from the MAS Notice 637 document itself. The AI provided no document passage or section heading to support its description, which means the actual content of Annex 6C may differ materially from what was described.
  • Cited source(s):
Impact for this audience

If the AI's description of Annex 6C as a prudent valuation and AVA framework is incorrect, any Risk team that builds its prudent valuation policy or fair-value governance documentation on that description will be applying the wrong requirements to its fair-valued financial instruments. In a Corporate Banking context, where fair-valued positions can include derivatives, structured products, and traded credit instruments, the regulatory and financial consequences of an incorrect valuation framework can be significant — including capital miscalculation, incorrect regulatory reporting, and potential MAS enforcement action where the deficiency persists across reporting periods. The absence of any supporting document passage in the AI's response is itself a signal that the team should treat the answer as unverified until the actual Annex 6C text has been read and confirmed.

References — raw findings (per AI model)
This finding also affects
← Previous finding Finding 1. Scope and exclusions of Annex 4D under MAS Notice 637
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.

Plain text 
RegLeg Specialist Panel (2026). "Content of Annex 6C under MAS Notice 637 — Corporate Banking × Risk — Singapore." Citation ID: . RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research, published 2026-05-28. https://reglegbrief.com/audiences/sectors/sg/corporate_banking/risk/finding/q-NOTICE-637-CAPITAL-ADEQUACY-BANKS-2025-v1-019/
APA 7th edition 
RegLeg Specialist Panel. (2026). Content of Annex 6C under MAS Notice 637 [Hallucination finding ]. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research. https://reglegbrief.com/audiences/sectors/sg/corporate_banking/risk/finding/q-NOTICE-637-CAPITAL-ADEQUACY-BANKS-2025-v1-019/
Bluebook / OSCOLA (US + UK legal) 
RegLeg Specialist Panel, Content of Annex 6C under MAS Notice 637 [], RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research (May 28, 2026), https://reglegbrief.com/audiences/sectors/sg/corporate_banking/risk/finding/q-NOTICE-637-CAPITAL-ADEQUACY-BANKS-2025-v1-019/.
BibTeX 
@misc{reglegbrief_,
  author    = {RegLeg Specialist Panel},
  title     = {Content of Annex 6C under MAS Notice 637},
  year      = {2026},
  publisher = {RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research},
  note      = {Hallucination finding Citation ID: },
  url       = {https://reglegbrief.com/audiences/sectors/sg/corporate_banking/risk/finding/q-NOTICE-637-CAPITAL-ADEQUACY-BANKS-2025-v1-019/}
}
← Back to case study summary Case study detail →
About Citation IDs →