AI Labs · updated 2026-05-29 · methodology v2.1

Finding on 'Q017 Probe' for Claude Opus 4.7 with web search ON

RLB Citation ID: RLB-H-INT-BIS-CPMI-IOSCO-PFMI-2012-Q017-Opus47

What the RLB Specialist Panel found

Finding on 'Q017 Probe' for Claude Opus 4.7 with web search ON

Question (paraphrased to protect IP): What changes to PFMI Principle 15's general business risk requirements are currently proposed or in consultation, and is the six-month liquid net assets floor being revisited?
AI's response: "CPMI-IOSCO published consultative report d229 ('FMIs' management of general business risks and general business losses: further guidance to the PFMI') in November 2025…The consultation proposes supplemental guidance to Principle 15 covering: a more rigorous, risk-based determination of LNAFE that may require more than 6 months"
Regulator's text: [d229 published November 2025 — beyond the training window of all current AI models]
Why the AI went wrong: The model produced a detailed, specific account of a document published after its training window, including its title, publication month, and proposed substantive changes to the six-month LNAFE floor. The level of specificity — naming the document, its consultation focus, and the direction of proposed change — is characteristic of a response reconstructed from plausible inference about what such a document would say rather than from any retrieved text. All three cited URLs resolve to pages that do not contain the claimed content.
Cited source(s):
https://www.bis.org/cpmi/publ/d229.htm — Pretextual
https://www.bis.org/cpmi/publ/d228.htm — Pretextual
https://www.isda.org/2026/02/09/isda-and-fia-respond-to-cpmi-iosco-consultati... — Pretextual

Impact for this audience

This is the strongest evidence of confident fabrication on post-cutoff content: a detailed account of a November 2025 consultation — including specific proposed changes to a quantitative threshold — supported by three Pretextual citations. The specificity of the fabricated content (proposed changes to LNAFE methodology) suggests the model is extrapolating plausibly from the direction of prior CPMI-IOSCO work, a pattern that would be very difficult to detect without authoritative source comparison.

← Previous finding Finding on 'Q014 Probe' for Claude Opus 4.7 with web search ON Next finding → Finding on 'Q021 Probe' for Claude Opus 4.7 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-2012-Q017-Opus47

Plain text Download

RegLeg Specialist Panel (2026). "Finding on 'Q017 Probe' for Claude Opus 4.7 with web search ON — AI Labs." Citation ID: RLB-H-INT-BIS-CPMI-IOSCO-PFMI-2012-Q017-Opus47. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research, published 2026-05-29. https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j1/int/bis-cpmi/cpmi-iosco-pfmi-2012/whitepaper/finding/INT-BIS-CPMI-INT-001-CPMI-IOSCO-PFMI-2012-v1-017--opus-47-websearch/

APA 7th edition Download

RegLeg Specialist Panel. (2026). Finding on 'Q017 Probe' for Claude Opus 4.7 with web search ON [Hallucination finding RLB-H-INT-BIS-CPMI-IOSCO-PFMI-2012-Q017-Opus47]. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research. https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j1/int/bis-cpmi/cpmi-iosco-pfmi-2012/whitepaper/finding/INT-BIS-CPMI-INT-001-CPMI-IOSCO-PFMI-2012-v1-017--opus-47-websearch/

Bluebook / OSCOLA (US + UK legal) Download

RegLeg Specialist Panel, Finding on 'Q017 Probe' for Claude Opus 4.7 with web search ON [RLB-H-INT-BIS-CPMI-IOSCO-PFMI-2012-Q017-Opus47], RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research (May 29, 2026), https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j1/int/bis-cpmi/cpmi-iosco-pfmi-2012/whitepaper/finding/INT-BIS-CPMI-INT-001-CPMI-IOSCO-PFMI-2012-v1-017--opus-47-websearch/.

BibTeX Download

@misc{reglegbrief_RLB_H_INT_BIS_CPMI_IOSCO_PFMI_2012_Q017_Opus47,
  author    = {RegLeg Specialist Panel},
  title     = {Finding on 'Q017 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-2012-Q017-Opus47},
  url       = {https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j1/int/bis-cpmi/cpmi-iosco-pfmi-2012/whitepaper/finding/INT-BIS-CPMI-INT-001-CPMI-IOSCO-PFMI-2012-v1-017--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.