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): What changes to PFMI Principle 15's general business risk requirements are currently proposed? Is the 6-month liquid net assets floor being revised or supplemented?
  • AI's response: "d229 proposes to supplement it with risk-sensitive guidance requiring FMIs to assess LNAFE based on their specific general business risk profile rather than defaulting to a mechanical 6-month minimum… Comments closed 6 February 2026."
  • Regulator's text: [d229 published November 2025 — beyond the training window of all current AI models]
  • Why the AI went wrong: The model produced a specific and detailed account of a November 2025 document — including a precise comment-period closing date — that it could not have retrieved from any accessible source. The direction of the proposed change (risk-based supplement, not mechanical minimum) is plausible given the general trajectory of CPMI-IOSCO work, but the specific comment deadline is a fabricated fact that would mislead a compliance professional managing a consultation response. The cited URL resolves to third-party commentary, not the primary document.
  • Cited source(s):
  • https://www.regulationtomorrow.com/2025/11/cpmi-iosco-papers-on-management-of... — Pretextual
Impact for this audience

The pattern of citing an acknowledged-inaccessible PDF alongside a refusal to produce its content is a consistent presentation inconsistency that warrants attention: a user seeing a citation alongside a refusal may interpret the citation as confirming the source exists and is relevant, when the model has no knowledge of what the source contains. This is a citation-trust failure independent of content fabrication.

← Previous finding Finding 15. Claude Sonnet 4.6 with web search Next finding → Finding 17. 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-l3-026--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-l3-026--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-l3-026--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-l3-026--opus-47-websearch/}
}
← Back to case study summary Case study detail →
About Citation IDs →