This is the consolidated view of findings. Click 'see details →' on any item for the full details for each finding.
If a Risk team member asks an AI tool about Annex 4D and receives the leveraged-ratio framing without noticing the buried caveat, that characterisation could enter an internal policy or training material governing how off-balance sheet items are treated for capital purposes. A misclassification of the governing framework — credit risk standardised approach versus leverage ratio — would affect RWA calculations, capital ratio outputs, and the regulatory reporting derived from them. MAS has supervisory authority over capital adequacy standards and the power to require remediation of deficient internal frameworks; a firm whose capital policies rest on a misidentified annex faces both remediation cost and the risk of additional supervisory scrutiny during the next review cycle.
see details →If the AI's confident description of Annex 6C as a prudent valuation framework is wrong, and a Risk team uses it to draft or update an internal valuation policy or additional valuation adjustment methodology, the firm could be operating a valuation framework that does not reflect the actual MAS requirements. Fair value measurement and prudent valuation are areas of active supervisory interest for MAS; a firm that cannot demonstrate that its internal methodology aligns with the specific annex requirements of Notice 637 faces potential findings in model reviews, internal audit reports, or MAS examinations, with remediation timelines that can disrupt ongoing business activities and require significant resource commitment from the Risk function.
see details →