AI Hallucination Research › Regulators › Global standard-setters › US › CFTC › SWAP-DEALER-BUSINESS-CONDUCT-DOCUMENTATION-2025 › White paper › Detail › Finding
AI Labs · Last updated 3 Jun 2026 · methodology v2.1 · Hallucination Register

Finding on 'Q002 Probe' for Claude Opus 4.7 with web search ON

RLB Citation ID: RLB-H-US-CFTC-SWAP-DEALER-BUSINESS-CONDUCT-DOCUMENTATION-2025-Q002-Opus47
What the RLB Specialist Panel found

Finding on 'Q002 Probe' for Claude Opus 4.7 with web search ON

  • Question (paraphrased to protect IP): Which specific appendix to 17 CFR Part 23 Subpart H was inadvertently removed by the December 2025 final rule and restored by the January 28, 2026 correction, and what guidance does it contain?
  • AI's response: "On January 28, 2026, the Commission published a correction to the final rule (Doc. 2026-01712, also effective Jan. 29, 2026) that reinstated an appendix that would otherwise have been inadvertently removed by the December 30 amendatory instructions."
  • Regulator's text: Appendix A to subpart H: "Guidance on the Application of §§23.434 and 23.440 for Swap Dealers That Make Recommendations to Counterparties or Special Entities." This appendix has been present since 2012.
  • Why the AI went wrong: The model identified the general mechanics of the correction correctly but fabricated the Federal Register document number it cited as evidence, that identifier maps to no live document. More critically, it did not name the specific appendix or its content, producing a response that characterises the correction's structure without delivering the substance of what was asked. The fabricated citation suggests the model constructed plausible-sounding documentation scaffolding around a general understanding of the event rather than retrieving the primary correction notice.
  • Cited source(s):
  • https://changeflow.com/govping/government-legislation/fr-2026-02-26-24, Fabricated
Impact for this audience

This failure implicates two subsystems simultaneously: the citation-generation path produced a fabricated Federal Register document number rather than declining to specify, indicating the training corpus has secondary commentary on the correction without the primary document's structured metadata; and the retrieval layer did not surface the primary correction notice as a top result despite web search being active. The fabricated identifier (Doc. 2026-01712) would return no result at federalregister.gov — a model deployed in a compliance co-pilot context would deliver a dead citation with high confidence.

References — raw findings (per AI model)
This finding also affects
Next finding → Finding on 'Q003 Probe' for Claude Opus 4.7 with web search ON
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.

RLB Citation ID: RLB-H-US-CFTC-SWAP-DEALER-BUSINESS-CONDUCT-DOCUMENTATION-2025-Q002-Opus47
Plain text Download 
RegLeg Specialist Panel (2026). "Finding on 'Q002 Probe' for Claude Opus 4.7 with web search ON — AI Labs." Citation ID: RLB-H-US-CFTC-SWAP-DEALER-BUSINESS-CONDUCT-DOCUMENTATION-2025-Q002-Opus47. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research, published 2026-06-03. https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j1/us/CFTC/SWAP-DEALER-BUSINESS-CONDUCT-DOCUMENTATION-2025/whitepaper/finding/US-CFTC-US-001-SWAP-DEALER-BUSINESS-CONDUCT-DOCUMENTATION-2025-v1-002--opus-47-websearch/
APA 7th edition Download 
RegLeg Specialist Panel. (2026). Finding on 'Q002 Probe' for Claude Opus 4.7 with web search ON [Hallucination finding RLB-H-US-CFTC-SWAP-DEALER-BUSINESS-CONDUCT-DOCUMENTATION-2025-Q002-Opus47]. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research. https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j1/us/CFTC/SWAP-DEALER-BUSINESS-CONDUCT-DOCUMENTATION-2025/whitepaper/finding/US-CFTC-US-001-SWAP-DEALER-BUSINESS-CONDUCT-DOCUMENTATION-2025-v1-002--opus-47-websearch/
Bluebook / OSCOLA (US + UK legal) Download 
RegLeg Specialist Panel, Finding on 'Q002 Probe' for Claude Opus 4.7 with web search ON [RLB-H-US-CFTC-SWAP-DEALER-BUSINESS-CONDUCT-DOCUMENTATION-2025-Q002-Opus47], RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research (June 03, 2026), https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j1/us/CFTC/SWAP-DEALER-BUSINESS-CONDUCT-DOCUMENTATION-2025/whitepaper/finding/US-CFTC-US-001-SWAP-DEALER-BUSINESS-CONDUCT-DOCUMENTATION-2025-v1-002--opus-47-websearch/.
BibTeX Download 
@misc{reglegbrief_RLB_H_US_CFTC_SWAP_DEALER_BUSINESS_CONDUCT_DOCUMENTATION_2025_Q002_Opus47,
  author    = {RegLeg Specialist Panel},
  title     = {Finding on 'Q002 Probe' for Claude Opus 4.7 with web search ON},
  year      = {2026},
  publisher = {RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research},
  note      = {Hallucination finding Citation ID: RLB-H-US-CFTC-SWAP-DEALER-BUSINESS-CONDUCT-DOCUMENTATION-2025-Q002-Opus47},
  url       = {https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j1/us/CFTC/SWAP-DEALER-BUSINESS-CONDUCT-DOCUMENTATION-2025/whitepaper/finding/US-CFTC-US-001-SWAP-DEALER-BUSINESS-CONDUCT-DOCUMENTATION-2025-v1-002--opus-47-websearch/}
}
← Back to case study summary Case study detail →
About Citation IDs →

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.