AI Hallucination Research › Regulators › Global standard-setters › INT › BIS-CPMI › CPMI-IOSCO-PFMI-2012 › White paper › Detail › Finding
AI Labs · published 2026-05-29 · methodology v2.1

Claude Opus 4.7 with web search

RLB-H-INT-BIS-CPMI-IOSCO-PFMI-2012-Q005-Sonnet46
What the RLB Specialist Panel found
  • Question (paraphrased to protect IP): What are the specific contents, thresholds, and cross-references in the CPMI-IOSCO consultative report on CCP resilience and recovery (August 2016)?
  • AI's response: "I do not have reliable verbatim recall of the body text of d149…I cannot, however, quote verbatim text, specific paragraph numbers, exact thresholds, or named entities from inside the d149 PDF without fabricating, so I will not."
  • Regulator's text: [Not provided — verbatim-access question]
  • Why the AI went wrong: The model correctly declined to fabricate verbatim content it could not retrieve, demonstrating appropriate calibration on the boundary between recalled knowledge and invented text. This is a well-formed refusal. No citation errors were produced.
  • Cited source(s):
Impact for this audience

This finding mirrors the Opus 4.7 failure on the same question but with higher quantitative specificity: Sonnet 4.6 produced exact counts (34 FMIs, 27 jurisdictions, six serious issues of concern) that have the form of precise findings from the November 2025 monitoring report. The parallel structure across both models on this question is diagnostic — both are drawing on the same plausible-inference template, suggesting this is a training-data-level issue rather than a model-specific generation artefact.

← Previous finding Finding 7. Claude Opus 4.7 with web search Next finding → Finding 9. Claude Opus 4.7 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 Opus 4.7 with web search — AI Labs." Citation ID: RLB-H-INT-BIS-CPMI-IOSCO-PFMI-2012-Q005-Sonnet46. 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-v1-005--sonnet-46-websearch/
APA 7th edition 
RegLeg Specialist Panel. (2026). Claude Opus 4.7 with web search [Hallucination finding RLB-H-INT-BIS-CPMI-IOSCO-PFMI-2012-Q005-Sonnet46]. 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-v1-005--sonnet-46-websearch/
Bluebook / OSCOLA (US + UK legal) 
RegLeg Specialist Panel, Claude Opus 4.7 with web search [RLB-H-INT-BIS-CPMI-IOSCO-PFMI-2012-Q005-Sonnet46], 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-v1-005--sonnet-46-websearch/.
BibTeX 
@misc{reglegbrief_RLB_H_INT_BIS_CPMI_IOSCO_PFMI_2012_Q005_Sonnet46,
  author    = {RegLeg Specialist Panel},
  title     = {Claude Opus 4.7 with web search},
  year      = {2026},
  publisher = {RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research},
  note      = {Hallucination finding Citation ID: RLB-H-INT-BIS-CPMI-IOSCO-PFMI-2012-Q005-Sonnet46},
  url       = {https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j1/int/bis-cpmi/cpmi-iosco-pfmi-2012/whitepaper/finding/INT-BIS-CPMI-INT-001-CPMI-IOSCO-PFMI-2012-v1-005--sonnet-46-websearch/}
}
← Back to case study summary Case study detail →
About Citation IDs →