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-Q009-Opus47
What the RLB Specialist Panel found
  • Question (paraphrased to protect IP): What are the compliance assessment rating levels used in the CPMI-IOSCO PFMI assessment methodology, and how do they compare to the Basel Core Principles compliance scale?
  • AI's response: "The CPMI-IOSCO d106 assessment methodology uses a 5-category observance scale for individual FMI assessments: Observed, Broadly Observed, Partly Observed, Not Observed, and Not Applicable."
  • Regulator's text: [Not accessible — PDF binary. Recalled scale: 'observed / broadly observed / partly observed / not observed']
  • Why the AI went wrong: The model reconstructed the assessment methodology rating scale from training data rather than from live document access, and in doing so added a fifth category ("Not Applicable") that does not appear in the regulator's published text. The response also cited a specific IOSCO publication URL as the authority for this characterisation, but the URL does not correspond to the CPMI-IOSCO assessment methodology document for PFMI. The error is a small but consequential misrepresentation of a formal compliance framework.
  • Cited source(s):
  • https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD396.pdf — Pretextual
Impact for this audience

The model added a category ('Not Applicable') to a four-category compliance rating scale that does not appear in the regulator's text — a small but materially consequential error for any user building a compliance assessment framework. This points to a training-data gap in the assessment methodology document specifically, which is less widely cited than the core PFMI and may be underrepresented in training corpora.

← Previous finding Finding 1. Claude Opus 4.7 with web search Next finding → Finding 3. 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-Q009-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-v1-009--opus-47-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-Q009-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-v1-009--opus-47-websearch/
Bluebook / OSCOLA (US + UK legal) 
RegLeg Specialist Panel, Claude Opus 4.7 with web search [RLB-H-INT-BIS-CPMI-IOSCO-PFMI-2012-Q009-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-v1-009--opus-47-websearch/.
BibTeX 
@misc{reglegbrief_RLB_H_INT_BIS_CPMI_IOSCO_PFMI_2012_Q009_Opus47,
  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-Q009-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-v1-009--opus-47-websearch/}
}
← Back to case study summary Case study detail →
About Citation IDs →