AI Hallucination Research › Regulators › Global standard-setters › INT › BIS-CPMI › CPMI-IOSCO-PFMI-L3-GENERAL-BUSINESS-RISK-2025 › White paper › Detail › Finding
AI Labs · Last updated 7 Jun 2026 · methodology vv2.3 · Hallucination Register

Finding on 'Q002 Probe' for Claude Opus 4.7 with web search ON

RLB Citation ID: RLB-H-INT-BIS-CPMI-IOSCO-PFMI-L3-GENERAL-BUSINESS-RISK-2025-Q002-Opus47
What the RLB Specialist Panel found

Finding on 'Q002 Probe' for Claude Opus 4.7 with web search ON

  • Question (paraphrased to protect IP): Under PFMI Principle 15 Key Consideration 3, what is the specific condition that governs whether equity held under international risk-based capital standards (e.g. Basel/CRD) can be counted towards an FMI's liquid net assets funded by equity requirement?
  • AI's response: "can be counted toward LNAFE ONLY to the extent that the underlying assets are also liquid in the Principle 15 KC4 sense and are not already committed against a different PFMI Principle's resource requirement"
  • Regulator's text: Equity held under international risk-based capital standards can be included where relevant and appropriate to avoid duplicate capital requirements.
  • Why the AI went wrong: The model generated a two-part compound condition, a KC4 liquidity requirement and a non-duplication-across-Principles constraint, that does not appear in the regulator's text. The published rule states a single permissive condition framed around avoiding duplicate capital requirements. The model's formulation is internally coherent and draws on real concepts from adjacent provisions of the PFMI framework, but it applies them to this Key Consideration in a way the standard does not support, producing a materially more restrictive and structurally different rule than the regulator published.
  • Cited source(s):
Impact for this audience

This failure implicates training-data representation of PFMI Principle 15's Key Consideration structure: the model generated a two-part compound condition drawing on real concepts from adjacent Key Considerations (KC4 liquidity, cross-Principles non-duplication) and applied them to KC3 in a way the standard does not support. The subsystem gap is verbatim-constraint anchoring — the model's schema for how this provision works overrode the regulator's actual published language, producing a materially more restrictive rule that does not exist.

References — raw findings (per AI model)
This finding also affects
Next finding → Finding on 'Q003 Probe' for Claude Sonnet 4.6 with web search ON
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.

RLB Citation ID: RLB-H-INT-BIS-CPMI-IOSCO-PFMI-L3-GENERAL-BUSINESS-RISK-2025-Q002-Opus47
Plain text Download 
RegLeg Specialist Panel (2026). "Finding on 'Q002 Probe' for Claude Opus 4.7 with web search ON — AI Labs." Citation ID: RLB-H-INT-BIS-CPMI-IOSCO-PFMI-L3-GENERAL-BUSINESS-RISK-2025-Q002-Opus47. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research, published 2026-06-07. https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j1/int/BIS-CPMI/CPMI-IOSCO-PFMI-L3-GENERAL-BUSINESS-RISK-2025/whitepaper/finding/INT-BIS-CPMI-INT-001-CPMI-IOSCO-PFMI-L3-GENERAL-BUSINESS-RISK-2025-v1-002--opus-47-websearch/
APA 7th edition Download 
RegLeg Specialist Panel. (2026). Finding on 'Q002 Probe' for Claude Opus 4.7 with web search ON [Hallucination finding RLB-H-INT-BIS-CPMI-IOSCO-PFMI-L3-GENERAL-BUSINESS-RISK-2025-Q002-Opus47]. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research. https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j1/int/BIS-CPMI/CPMI-IOSCO-PFMI-L3-GENERAL-BUSINESS-RISK-2025/whitepaper/finding/INT-BIS-CPMI-INT-001-CPMI-IOSCO-PFMI-L3-GENERAL-BUSINESS-RISK-2025-v1-002--opus-47-websearch/
Bluebook / OSCOLA (US + UK legal) Download 
RegLeg Specialist Panel, Finding on 'Q002 Probe' for Claude Opus 4.7 with web search ON [RLB-H-INT-BIS-CPMI-IOSCO-PFMI-L3-GENERAL-BUSINESS-RISK-2025-Q002-Opus47], RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research (June 07, 2026), https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j1/int/BIS-CPMI/CPMI-IOSCO-PFMI-L3-GENERAL-BUSINESS-RISK-2025/whitepaper/finding/INT-BIS-CPMI-INT-001-CPMI-IOSCO-PFMI-L3-GENERAL-BUSINESS-RISK-2025-v1-002--opus-47-websearch/.
BibTeX Download 
@misc{reglegbrief_RLB_H_INT_BIS_CPMI_IOSCO_PFMI_L3_GENERAL_BUSINESS_RISK_2025_Q002_Opus47,
  author    = {RegLeg Specialist Panel},
  title     = {Finding on 'Q002 Probe' for Claude Opus 4.7 with web search ON},
  year      = {2026},
  publisher = {RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research},
  note      = {Hallucination finding Citation ID: RLB-H-INT-BIS-CPMI-IOSCO-PFMI-L3-GENERAL-BUSINESS-RISK-2025-Q002-Opus47},
  url       = {https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j1/int/BIS-CPMI/CPMI-IOSCO-PFMI-L3-GENERAL-BUSINESS-RISK-2025/whitepaper/finding/INT-BIS-CPMI-INT-001-CPMI-IOSCO-PFMI-L3-GENERAL-BUSINESS-RISK-2025-v1-002--opus-47-websearch/}
}
← Back to case study summary Case study detail →
About Citation IDs →

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.