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

Claude Opus 4.7 with web search

RLB-H-INT-BIS-CPMI-IOSCO-PFMI-2012-Q011-Opus47

What the RLB Specialist Panel found

Finding 11. Claude Opus 4.7 with web search

Question (paraphrased to protect IP): What does PFMI Annex F say about oversight of critical service providers, and what is the relationship between the 2014 CPMI-IOSCO assessment methodology document and Annex F?
AI's response: "d123 (December 2014) is 'Cyber resilience in financial market infrastructures' — preliminary CPMI work on cyber, distinct from Annex F (the canonical cyber guidance is d146, June 2016, not d123)."
Regulator's text: [Not accessible — PDF binary]
Why the AI went wrong: The model was unable to access the primary PFMI PDF and instead reconstructed a narrative about the document lineage from training data, attributing specific titles and dates to BIS publication identifiers that do not match the regulator's record. The response conflates distinct documents and asserts a specific characterisation of d123's subject matter that cannot be verified against the source. A citation to the BIS PFMI landing page is presented as supporting this reconstruction.
Cited source(s):
https://www.bis.org/cpmi/publ/d101a.pdf — Pretextual

Impact for this audience

The model reconstructed a narrative about CPMI document lineage from training-weighted recall, attributing specific titles and dates to publication identifiers that do not match the regulator's record. This is a compound error — a document-identity hallucination compounded by a Pretextual citation — that would be difficult to detect without authoritative document mapping. A synthetic eval probe covering the BIS d### publication series would directly surface this class of failure.

References — raw findings (per AI model)

RLB-H-INT-BIS-CPMI-IOSCO-PFMI-2012-Q011-Opus47 Claude Opus 4.7 (web search on)

This finding also affects

← Previous finding Finding 2. Claude Opus 4.7 with web search Next finding → Finding 4. 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-Q011-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-v1-011--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-Q011-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-v1-011--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-Q011-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-v1-011--opus-47-websearch/.

BibTeX

@misc{reglegbrief_RLB_H_INT_BIS_CPMI_IOSCO_PFMI_2012_Q011_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-Q011-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-v1-011--opus-47-websearch/}
}

← Back to case study summary Case study detail →

About Citation IDs →