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

Claude Opus 4.7 with web search

RLB-H-INT-BIS-CPMI-IOSCO-PFMI-2012-Q022-Sonnet46

What the RLB Specialist Panel found

Finding 27. Claude Opus 4.7 with web search

Question (paraphrased to protect IP): What specific verbatim text, thresholds, or cross-references appear in the IOSCO version of the PFMI disclosure framework and assessment methodology?
AI's response: "I do not have verbatim access to IOSCOPD396…I will not produce verbatim text or paragraph references from the PDF as I cannot confirm them without re-reading the binary directly."
Regulator's text: [Not provided — verbatim-access question]
Why the AI went wrong: The model correctly declined to fabricate verbatim content from a PDF it could not retrieve. As with the parallel finding on IOSCOPD377, the model cited the inaccessible PDF URL while simultaneously acknowledging it could not access the document — a citation pattern that could mislead a reader into treating the URL as a verified source.
Cited source(s):
https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD396.pdf — Pretextual

Impact for this audience

The specific key consideration reference (KC 2.5) with quoted normative language is a compound error: the KC number, the quoted text, and the normative characterisation may all be wrong relative to the primary document, but the structured presentation makes the error difficult to detect without direct document access. The citation to a third-party FMI disclosure document (rather than the PFMI primary source) adds a further layer of unverifiability — a pattern where the model's citation generator reaches for the most accessible document that mentions PFMI rather than the authoritative source.

References — raw findings (per AI model)

RLB-H-INT-BIS-CPMI-IOSCO-PFMI-2012-Q022-Sonnet46 Claude Sonnet 4.6 (web search on)

This finding also affects

← Previous finding Finding 11. Claude Opus 4.7 with web search Next finding → Finding 13. Claude Sonnet 4.6 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-Q022-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-v1-022--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-Q022-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-v1-022--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-Q022-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-v1-022--sonnet-46-websearch/.

BibTeX

@misc{reglegbrief_RLB_H_INT_BIS_CPMI_IOSCO_PFMI_2012_Q022_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-Q022-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-v1-022--sonnet-46-websearch/}
}

← Back to case study summary Case study detail →

About Citation IDs →