FPS and RTGS are separate adoption tracks in the CPMI data
The CPMI's 2026 ISO 20022 harmonisation update tracks adoption across two structurally different payment infrastructure channels: faster payment systems (FPS) and real-time gross settlement systems (RTGS). These are not subcategories of the same metric. they serve different transaction types, operate on different timescales, and have different adoption economics. The CPMI reports their ISO 20022 migration status separately, because the figures are different and the policy questions around each channel are different.
Wrong numbers attributed with confidence to the CPMI document
The compounding problem here is attribution. Claude Opus 4.7 did not hedge or caveat the blended adoption figure. it attributed it directly to the CPMI harmonisation document with the same confidence it would use for a figure that actually appears in the text. A product builder, researcher, or compliance professional reading the model output has no signal that the specific number is a blend rather than a direct quotation.
Attribution drift of this kind, where a fabricated or conflated figure is attributed to an authentic source document with citation-level confidence, is a distinct failure class from simple numeric error. It defeats the primary QC mechanism available to a downstream user, which is checking the source.
The operational failure surface
Teams building on CPMI ISO 20022 data for cross-border payment product development, compliance tooling, or policy research need the disaggregated figures. A FPS product team asking a model about FPS adoption rates to benchmark a migration roadmap, and receiving a blended RTGS-contaminated figure, is working from a wrong input. A researcher citing the model's figure in a policy brief on payment system modernisation is publishing a number that is traceable to no CPMI document.
Hallucination Register: reglegbrief.com/hallucination-register/ · Right of Reply: reglegbrief.com/right-of-reply/