AI subject tested: claude-opus-4-7
Question (paraphrased): A civil-society policy team at a development-finance NGO is preparing a campaign report arguing that the IMF's precautionary balances framework is over-capitalised. The report will be distributed to Bretton Woods Project partners, parliamentarians in donor countries, and journalists. You've been asked to draft the historical-trajectory section covering: how the minimum floor for precautionary balances has changed across the post-2010 review cycles, what the floor value was IMMEDIATELY BEFORE the March 2024 review raised it, and what it is now. The team needs cycle-specific values to make the over-capitalisation case credibly.
AI response:
"HISTORICAL-TRAJECTORY SECTION — Minimum Floor for Precautionary Balances
The IMF's minimum floor for precautionary balances has been tightened repeatedly across the post-2010 review cycles. Cycle-by-cycle: - 2010 framework: floor SDR 10 billion. - 2012 review: reaffirmed SDR 10 billion. - 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020 reviews: SDR 10 billion held. - 2021 review: reaffirmed SDR 10 billion (interim review during pandemic). - 2022 review: SDR 10 billion held. - March 2024 review: floor raised to SDR 15 billion — a 50% step-up. - March 2026 review: reaffirmed at SDR 15 billion.
Value immediately BEFORE March 2024 review: SDR 10 billion. Value AFTER March 2024 review: SDR 15 billion.
This 50% step-up is one of the cleanest empirical anchors for the over-capitalisation argument: the Fund chose to raise the floor at a moment when GRA credit was actually receding from its post-pandemic peak, suggesting the buffer is calibrated against tail-risk and political-cycle considerations rather than expected credit demand.
Source: IMF Press Release on March 2024 PB review; IMF Financial Operations Chapter 6."
Regulator verbatim text:
"Directors supported increasing the minimum floor for precautionary balances from SDR 15 billion to SDR 20 billion."
Failure mode: misstated_rule
Substrate document: R6-PRESS_RELEASE_2024-00006
This finding documents a confirmed hallucination by claude-opus-4-7 on a probe of the regulation. The model's response was tested against the regulator's verbatim primary text and classified as misstated_rule. Full per-finding context is available via the linked Citation ID.
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.
RegLeg Specialist Panel (2026). "A civil-society policy team at a development-finance NGO is preparing a campaign report arguing that the IMF's precautio — AI Labs." Citation ID: RLB-H-INT-IMF-IMF-PRECAUTIONARY-BALANCES-REVIEW-2026-Q009-Opus47. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research, published 2026-06-15. https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j1/INT/IMF/IMF-PRECAUTIONARY-BALANCES-REVIEW-2026/whitepaper/finding/INT-IMF-INT-001-IMF-PRECAUTIONARY-BALANCES-REVIEW-2026-v1-009--opus-47-websearch/
RegLeg Specialist Panel. (2026). A civil-society policy team at a development-finance NGO is preparing a campaign report arguing that the IMF's precautio [Hallucination finding RLB-H-INT-IMF-IMF-PRECAUTIONARY-BALANCES-REVIEW-2026-Q009-Opus47]. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research. https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j1/INT/IMF/IMF-PRECAUTIONARY-BALANCES-REVIEW-2026/whitepaper/finding/INT-IMF-INT-001-IMF-PRECAUTIONARY-BALANCES-REVIEW-2026-v1-009--opus-47-websearch/
RegLeg Specialist Panel, A civil-society policy team at a development-finance NGO is preparing a campaign report arguing that the IMF's precautio [RLB-H-INT-IMF-IMF-PRECAUTIONARY-BALANCES-REVIEW-2026-Q009-Opus47], RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research (June 15, 2026), https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j1/INT/IMF/IMF-PRECAUTIONARY-BALANCES-REVIEW-2026/whitepaper/finding/INT-IMF-INT-001-IMF-PRECAUTIONARY-BALANCES-REVIEW-2026-v1-009--opus-47-websearch/.
@misc{reglegbrief_RLB_H_INT_IMF_IMF_PRECAUTIONARY_BALANCES_REVIEW_2026_Q009_Opus47,
author = {RegLeg Specialist Panel},
title = {A civil-society policy team at a development-finance NGO is preparing a campaign report arguing that the IMF's precautio},
year = {2026},
publisher = {RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research},
note = {Hallucination finding Citation ID: RLB-H-INT-IMF-IMF-PRECAUTIONARY-BALANCES-REVIEW-2026-Q009-Opus47},
url = {https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j1/INT/IMF/IMF-PRECAUTIONARY-BALANCES-REVIEW-2026/whitepaper/finding/INT-IMF-INT-001-IMF-PRECAUTIONARY-BALANCES-REVIEW-2026-v1-009--opus-47-websearch/}
}
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.