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-Q010-Sonnet46
What the RLB Specialist Panel found
  • Question (paraphrased to protect IP): What specific findings does the CPMI-IOSCO Level 3 assessment on general business risks (November 2025) contain about FMI compliance with the six-month liquid net assets standard?
  • AI's response: "I do not have verbatim access to the d228 PDF…I therefore decline to assert the quoted snippet as verbatim from d228; the BIS d228 PDF should be consulted to verify exact wording."
  • Regulator's text: [Not provided — verbatim-access question]
  • Why the AI went wrong: The model correctly recognised it could not verify the specific contents of a November 2025 document and declined to produce verbatim claims. The refusal is appropriately scoped. One Pretextual citation was produced — a third-party commentary URL rather than the primary source — which represents a mild citation error even in the context of an otherwise well-calibrated refusal.
  • Cited source(s):
  • https://www.regulationtomorrow.com/2025/11/cpmi-iosco-papers-on-management-of... — Pretextual
Impact for this audience

The four-part characterisation of the 2017 recovery guidance revision is a structured fabrication — the model produced a numbered list of specific clarification areas that has the formal appearance of document analysis but cannot be traced to the primary source. The cited IOSCO URL resolves to an unrelated document. This is a high-risk failure mode for users building compliance gap analyses against the PFMI recovery framework.

← Previous finding Finding 8. Claude Opus 4.7 with web search Next finding → Finding 10. 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-Q010-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-v1-010--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-Q010-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-v1-010--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-Q010-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-v1-010--sonnet-46-websearch/.
BibTeX 
@misc{reglegbrief_RLB_H_INT_BIS_CPMI_IOSCO_PFMI_2012_Q010_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-Q010-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-v1-010--sonnet-46-websearch/}
}
← Back to case study summary Case study detail →
About Citation IDs →