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 Sonnet 4.6 with web search

What the RLB Specialist Panel found
  • Question (paraphrased to protect IP): Which CPMI-IOSCO FMI recovery guidance document is currently operative, and what specific areas did the 2017 revision clarify compared to the 2014 final version?
  • AI's response: "The 2017 revision added specific clarifications in four areas compared to d121: (i) operationalisation of the recovery plan… (ii) replenishment… (iii) non-default related losses… (iv) transparency with respect to recovery tools"
  • Regulator's text: Recovery of financial market infrastructures — Revised report [July 2017] revises and supersedes the October 2014 recovery report.
  • Why the AI went wrong: The model correctly identified the 2017 revised recovery report as the operative document and correctly named the 2014 report it superseded, but then produced a specific four-part characterisation of what the 2017 revision clarified relative to its predecessor. These four areas have the surface structure of actual document content but cannot be verified against the primary source, and the cited IOSCO PDF URL does not correspond to the recovery guidance document described.
  • Cited source(s):
  • https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/ioscopd568.pdf — Pretextual
Impact for this audience

Calibrated refusal with a minor citation inconsistency: the model declined to fabricate verbatim content but produced a Pretextual citation to a third-party commentary page. The citation generation is running even when the content generation is suppressed — this is a distinct signal about where in the generation pipeline the citation step sits relative to the content-verification step.

← Previous finding Finding 13. Claude Sonnet 4.6 with web search Next finding → Finding 15. 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 Sonnet 4.6 with web search — AI Labs." Citation ID: . 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-l3-024--opus-47-websearch/
APA 7th edition 
RegLeg Specialist Panel. (2026). Claude Sonnet 4.6 with web search [Hallucination finding ]. 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-l3-024--opus-47-websearch/
Bluebook / OSCOLA (US + UK legal) 
RegLeg Specialist Panel, Claude Sonnet 4.6 with web search [], 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-l3-024--opus-47-websearch/.
BibTeX 
@misc{reglegbrief_,
  author    = {RegLeg Specialist Panel},
  title     = {Claude Sonnet 4.6 with web search},
  year      = {2026},
  publisher = {RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research},
  note      = {Hallucination finding Citation ID: },
  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-l3-024--opus-47-websearch/}
}
← Back to case study summary Case study detail →
About Citation IDs →