What does Section IV.3 of the 2025 OECD Merger Review Recommendation establish as the hierarchy for acceptable remedies in merger proceedings, and what is the priority ordering within the structural remedies tier?
Section IV.3 establishes a two-level preference: structural over behavioural, and standalone-business divestiture as the preferred structural form. The model elaborated this into a three-tier internal ranking, upfront/fix-it-first divestiture, buyer pool with trustee backstop, crown jewel packages, that maps onto common EU and US merger remedy practice but does not appear in the 2025 OECD Recommendation's text. The model substituted a practitioner-familiar remedy taxonomy drawn from other jurisdictions' frameworks for the Recommendation's simpler, less-prescriptive hierarchy, and presented the elaborated ranking as the OECD standard.
The three-tier internal remedy ranking the model produced maps precisely onto EU Merger Regulation remedy practice and US DOJ/FTC remedy convention — frameworks heavily represented in training. The OECD Recommendation's simpler two-level preference appears insufficiently weighted to override the more detailed framework when both are plausibly relevant. This implicates retrieval ranking (primary text vs. adjacent-jurisdiction commentary) and calibration (schema-elaboration confidence when the retrieved content does not support the elaboration).
AI presented the EU Merger Regulation's fix-it-first, upfront-buyer, crown-jewel hierarchy as the operative content of OECD/LEGAL/0333 Section IV.3, supported by real OECD citations that do not actually contain this hierarchy, meaning a reviewer relying on the cited sources without reading them would not catch the error.
For a law firm advising a client on remedy design in an OECD Adherent jurisdiction outside the EU, this produces advice calibrated to the wrong benchmark standard. If the client structures a remedy package on the assumption that the OECD framework requires the EU-style fix-it-first priority ordering, and the relevant authority does not apply that hierarchy, the firm has given substantively wrong strategic advice. The PI exposure is direct, and the misattributed citations make it worse: the error would pass a superficial document-review check.
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). "Finding#2, EU fix-it-first hierarchy cited as OECD text — Law Firms × Legal — International / Multilateral." Citation ID: RLB-F-INT-OECD-OECD-MERGER-REVIEW-RECOMMENDATION-2025-Q002. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research, published 2026-06-11. https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j1/int/OECD/OECD-MERGER-REVIEW-RECOMMENDATION-2025/sectors/law_firms/legal/finding/INT-OECD-INT-001-OECD-MERGER-REVIEW-RECOMMENDATION-2025-v1-002/
RegLeg Specialist Panel. (2026). Finding#2, EU fix-it-first hierarchy cited as OECD text [Hallucination finding RLB-F-INT-OECD-OECD-MERGER-REVIEW-RECOMMENDATION-2025-Q002]. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research. https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j1/int/OECD/OECD-MERGER-REVIEW-RECOMMENDATION-2025/sectors/law_firms/legal/finding/INT-OECD-INT-001-OECD-MERGER-REVIEW-RECOMMENDATION-2025-v1-002/
RegLeg Specialist Panel, Finding#2, EU fix-it-first hierarchy cited as OECD text [RLB-F-INT-OECD-OECD-MERGER-REVIEW-RECOMMENDATION-2025-Q002], RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research (June 11, 2026), https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j1/int/OECD/OECD-MERGER-REVIEW-RECOMMENDATION-2025/sectors/law_firms/legal/finding/INT-OECD-INT-001-OECD-MERGER-REVIEW-RECOMMENDATION-2025-v1-002/.
@misc{reglegbrief_RLB_F_INT_OECD_OECD_MERGER_REVIEW_RECOMMENDATION_2025_Q002,
author = {RegLeg Specialist Panel},
title = {Finding#2, EU fix-it-first hierarchy cited as OECD text},
year = {2026},
publisher = {RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research},
note = {Hallucination finding Citation ID: RLB-F-INT-OECD-OECD-MERGER-REVIEW-RECOMMENDATION-2025-Q002},
url = {https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j1/int/OECD/OECD-MERGER-REVIEW-RECOMMENDATION-2025/sectors/law_firms/legal/finding/INT-OECD-INT-001-OECD-MERGER-REVIEW-RECOMMENDATION-2025-v1-002/}
}
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.