AI Hallucination Research › Regulators › Global standard-setters › INT › BIS-CPMI › CPMI-IOSCO-CYBER-RESILIENCE-FMI-2016 › White paper › Detail › Finding
AI Labs · published 2026-05-26 · methodology v2.1

Claude Sonnet 4.6 with web search

RLB-H-INT-BIS-CPMI-IOSCO-CYBER-RESILIENCE-FMI-2016-Q019-Sonnet46
What the RLB Specialist Panel found
  • Question (paraphrased to protect IP): Does the CPMI-IOSCO 2016 Cyber Guidance itself specify detailed operational practices for cyber incident response and recovery, or is that level of detail addressed in later publications?
  • AI's response: > Yes. The CPMI-IOSCO 2016 Cyber Guidance dedicates specific sections to cyber incident response and recovery... It describes detailed expectations for FMIs including: having a cyber incident response plan... use of a secondary site, recovery and resumption planning, communication protocols during incidents.
  • Regulator's text: The FSB published Effective Practices for Cyber Incident Response and Recovery in October 2020 — four years after the 2016 guidance. That later publication contains the operational detail for the Response and Recovery phase that goes beyond what the 2016 guidance specifies.
  • Why the AI went wrong: The model affirmed that the 2016 guidance contains detailed operational response-and-recovery practices, collapsing a four-year gap in the regulatory timeline. The operational specificity the model described is more characteristic of the 2020 FSB publication than of the 2016 text, which addresses the same themes at a higher level of abstraction. The model appears to have drawn on its knowledge of the post-2016 ecosystem to populate what it believed the original document contained.
  • Regulator portal (if any cited link is dud): https://www.bis.org
Impact for this audience

This finding points to a gap in the model's ability to distinguish the level of operational detail characteristic of a 2016 principles-based guidance document versus a 2020 operational-practices publication. The model populated the 2016 document's supposed content with material more consistent with the later FSB guidance, suggesting that its internal representation of the 2016 document is contaminated by subsequent regulatory outputs on the same topic. Synthetic training pairs that contrast high-level principles text with operational-detail text from a later document — with correct attribution — could help calibrate this boundary.

References — raw findings (per AI model)
This finding also affects
← Previous finding Finding 4. Claude Sonnet 4.6 with web search Next finding → Finding 6. Claude Sonnet 4.6 with web search
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.

Plain text 
RegLeg Specialist Panel (2026). "Claude Sonnet 4.6 with web search — AI Labs." Citation ID: RLB-H-INT-BIS-CPMI-IOSCO-CYBER-RESILIENCE-FMI-2016-Q019-Sonnet46. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research, published 2026-05-26. https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j1/int/bis-cpmi/cpmi-iosco-cyber-resilience-fmi-2016/whitepaper/finding/INT-BIS-CPMI-INT-001-CPMI-IOSCO-CYBER-RESILIENCE-FMI-2016-v1-019--sonnet-46-websearch/
APA 7th edition 
RegLeg Specialist Panel. (2026). Claude Sonnet 4.6 with web search [Hallucination finding RLB-H-INT-BIS-CPMI-IOSCO-CYBER-RESILIENCE-FMI-2016-Q019-Sonnet46]. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research. https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j1/int/bis-cpmi/cpmi-iosco-cyber-resilience-fmi-2016/whitepaper/finding/INT-BIS-CPMI-INT-001-CPMI-IOSCO-CYBER-RESILIENCE-FMI-2016-v1-019--sonnet-46-websearch/
Bluebook / OSCOLA (US + UK legal) 
RegLeg Specialist Panel, Claude Sonnet 4.6 with web search [RLB-H-INT-BIS-CPMI-IOSCO-CYBER-RESILIENCE-FMI-2016-Q019-Sonnet46], RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research (May 26, 2026), https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j1/int/bis-cpmi/cpmi-iosco-cyber-resilience-fmi-2016/whitepaper/finding/INT-BIS-CPMI-INT-001-CPMI-IOSCO-CYBER-RESILIENCE-FMI-2016-v1-019--sonnet-46-websearch/.
BibTeX 
@misc{reglegbrief_RLB_H_INT_BIS_CPMI_IOSCO_CYBER_RESILIENCE_FMI_2016_Q019_Sonnet46,
  author    = {RegLeg Specialist Panel},
  title     = {Claude Sonnet 4.6 with web search},
  year      = {2026},
  publisher = {RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research},
  note      = {Hallucination finding Citation ID: RLB-H-INT-BIS-CPMI-IOSCO-CYBER-RESILIENCE-FMI-2016-Q019-Sonnet46},
  url       = {https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j1/int/bis-cpmi/cpmi-iosco-cyber-resilience-fmi-2016/whitepaper/finding/INT-BIS-CPMI-INT-001-CPMI-IOSCO-CYBER-RESILIENCE-FMI-2016-v1-019--sonnet-46-websearch/}
}
← Back to case study summary Case study detail →
About Citation IDs →