What does Section IV.3 of the 2025 OECD Merger Review Recommendation establish as the hierarchy for acceptable remedies in merger proceedings, and what is the priority ordering within the structural remedies tier?
Section IV.3 establishes a two-level preference: structural over behavioural, and standalone-business divestiture as the preferred structural form. The model elaborated this into a three-tier internal ranking, upfront/fix-it-first divestiture, buyer pool with trustee backstop, crown jewel packages, that maps onto common EU and US merger remedy practice but does not appear in the 2025 OECD Recommendation's text. The model substituted a practitioner-familiar remedy taxonomy drawn from other jurisdictions' frameworks for the Recommendation's simpler, less-prescriptive hierarchy, and presented the elaborated ranking as the OECD standard.
The three-tier internal remedy ranking the model produced maps precisely onto EU Merger Regulation remedy practice and US DOJ/FTC remedy convention — frameworks heavily represented in training. The OECD Recommendation's simpler two-level preference appears insufficiently weighted to override the more detailed framework when both are plausibly relevant. This implicates retrieval ranking (primary text vs. adjacent-jurisdiction commentary) and calibration (schema-elaboration confidence when the retrieved content does not support the elaboration).
AI tools grafted the EU merger-control remedy sub-hierarchy, fix-it-first, upfront buyer, crown jewel, onto Section IV.3 of the Recommendation as though it were OECD operative text, citing real OECD publications in support. A practitioner advising on remedies strategy in an OECD-adherent jurisdiction that does not follow EU practice would be presenting the wrong normative baseline. Because the fabricated hierarchy is internally coherent and the cited sources are real, the error is unlikely to surface unless the practitioner reads Section IV.3 directly.
If the advice feeds a remedies negotiation, the client's bargaining position may be built on a framework the authority does not recognise.
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.
RegLeg Specialist Panel, Finding#2, EU remedy sub-hierarchy misattributed as OECD text [RLB-F-INT-OECD-OECD-MERGER-REVIEW-RECOMMENDATION-2025-Q002], RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research (June 11, 2026), https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j1/int/OECD/OECD-MERGER-REVIEW-RECOMMENDATION-2025/practitioners/lawyers/finding/INT-OECD-INT-001-OECD-MERGER-REVIEW-RECOMMENDATION-2025-v1-002/.
RegLeg Specialist Panel (2026). "Finding#2, EU remedy sub-hierarchy misattributed as OECD text — Practitioners — Lawyers." Citation ID: RLB-F-INT-OECD-OECD-MERGER-REVIEW-RECOMMENDATION-2025-Q002. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research, published 2026-06-11. https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j1/int/OECD/OECD-MERGER-REVIEW-RECOMMENDATION-2025/practitioners/lawyers/finding/INT-OECD-INT-001-OECD-MERGER-REVIEW-RECOMMENDATION-2025-v1-002/
RegLeg Specialist Panel. (2026). Finding#2, EU remedy sub-hierarchy misattributed as OECD text [Hallucination finding RLB-F-INT-OECD-OECD-MERGER-REVIEW-RECOMMENDATION-2025-Q002]. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research. https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j1/int/OECD/OECD-MERGER-REVIEW-RECOMMENDATION-2025/practitioners/lawyers/finding/INT-OECD-INT-001-OECD-MERGER-REVIEW-RECOMMENDATION-2025-v1-002/
@misc{reglegbrief_RLB_F_INT_OECD_OECD_MERGER_REVIEW_RECOMMENDATION_2025_Q002,
author = {RegLeg Specialist Panel},
title = {Finding#2, EU remedy sub-hierarchy misattributed as OECD text},
year = {2026},
publisher = {RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research},
note = {Hallucination finding Citation ID: RLB-F-INT-OECD-OECD-MERGER-REVIEW-RECOMMENDATION-2025-Q002},
url = {https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j1/int/OECD/OECD-MERGER-REVIEW-RECOMMENDATION-2025/practitioners/lawyers/finding/INT-OECD-INT-001-OECD-MERGER-REVIEW-RECOMMENDATION-2025-v1-002/}
}
Every finding on this page compares an AI subject's account of the rule against the regulator's verbatim text from the regulator's own portal. Both are linked. Each delta, its root causes, and impact analysis are documented and published with immutable Citation IDs.