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 specific governance requirements does PFMI Principle 2 impose on FMI boards, and is the establishment of a risk committee a conditional recommendation or a mandatory requirement?
  • AI's response: "KC 2.5 states that 'the board should consider establishing dedicated audit, risk, and remuneration committees' — this is conditional ('should consider'), not a hard mandate."
  • Regulator's text: [Not accessible — PDF binary. Principle 2 governance requirements for FMI boards — recall only]
  • Why the AI went wrong: The model produced a specific key consideration reference (KC 2.5) with quoted language characterising the risk committee requirement as conditional rather than mandatory. The normative characterisation may be directionally correct based on general PFMI drafting conventions, but the quoted language and the specific key consideration number cannot be verified against the inaccessible primary PDF. The cited URL is a third-party FMI disclosure document rather than the PFMI primary source, which adds a further layer of unverifiability to the claim.
  • Cited source(s):
  • https://www.cmegroup.com/clearing/risk-management/files/cme-clearing-principl... — Pretextual
Impact for this audience

Same citation-alongside-refusal pattern as finding 26. The IOSCO disclosure framework and assessment methodology (IOSCOPD396) is a document that alignment and evals teams should specifically target with verbatim-paragraph probes — it contains the formal rating scale whose miscategorisation appeared in finding 9, and it is the kind of technical document that is underrepresented in training corpora relative to its regulatory importance.

← Previous finding Finding 16. Claude Sonnet 4.6 with web search Next finding → Finding 18. 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-l3-027--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-l3-027--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-l3-027--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-l3-027--opus-47-websearch/}
}
← Back to case study summary Case study detail →
About Citation IDs →