AI Hallucination Research › Regulators › Major advanced economies › GB › FCA › CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9 › White paper › Detail › Finding
AI Labs · Last updated 7 Jun 2026 · methodology v2.3 · Hallucination Register

Finding on 'Q003 Probe' for Claude Opus 4.7 with web search ON

RLB Citation ID: RLB-H-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q003-Opus47
What the RLB Specialist Panel found

Finding on 'Q003 Probe' for Claude Opus 4.7 with web search ON

  • Question (paraphrased to protect IP): Does the Consumer Duty require firms to prevent all foreseeable harm to retail customers? What is the position where a customer understands and accepts a risk?
  • AI's response: > "Where a retail customer understands the risk and the firm has acted in good faith, supported understanding, avoided foreseeable harm caused by its own conduct, and otherwise complied with the Duty, the customer accepting a risk does not breach the Duty."
  • Regulator's text: Where a firm reasonably believes a retail customer understands and accepts such risks, it will not breach the rule if it fails to prevent them.
  • Why the AI went wrong: The FCA's rule sets a single condition, the firm's reasonable belief that the customer understands and accepts the risk. The model reconstructed a multi-part compliance test (good faith, supported understanding, avoided firm-caused harm, plus general Duty compliance) that does not appear in the regulator's text. This expansion substitutes an inference-derived elaboration for the published rule, removing the qualifier "reasonably believes" and replacing it with a more demanding composite standard.
  • Cited source(s):
  • https://handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/PRIN/2A/2.html, Pretextual
  • https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/finalised-guidance/fg22-5.pdf, Pretextual
  • Regulator portal (if any cited link is dud): https://www.fca.org.uk
Impact for this audience

This finding implicates the model's handling of qualified regulatory rules: the FCA's foreseeable harm provision is a single-condition safe harbour ('reasonably believes'), but the model reconstructed it as a multi-factor compliance test ('good faith', 'supported understanding', 'avoided firm-caused harm', 'otherwise complied with the Duty'). The model dropped the qualifier 'reasonably believes' and inflated the test in the direction of a more demanding standard. The retrieval layer did not correct this; the cited FCA Handbook URL did not anchor the response to the actual rule text.

For a compliance-eval probe, this is a high-priority candidate: pair a rule that turns on a single test with a question that invites a multi-factor answer, and watch whether the model preserves the regulator's structure or reconstructs it.

References — raw findings (per AI model)
This finding also affects
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-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q003-Opus47
Plain text Download 
RegLeg Specialist Panel (2026). "Finding on 'Q003 Probe' for Claude Opus 4.7 with web search ON — AI Labs." Citation ID: RLB-H-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q003-Opus47. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research, published 2026-06-07. https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j3/GB/FCA/CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9/whitepaper/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-003--opus-47-websearch/
APA 7th edition Download 
RegLeg Specialist Panel. (2026). Finding on 'Q003 Probe' for Claude Opus 4.7 with web search ON [Hallucination finding RLB-H-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q003-Opus47]. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research. https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j3/GB/FCA/CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9/whitepaper/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-003--opus-47-websearch/
Bluebook / OSCOLA (US + UK legal) Download 
RegLeg Specialist Panel, Finding on 'Q003 Probe' for Claude Opus 4.7 with web search ON [RLB-H-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q003-Opus47], RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research (June 07, 2026), https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j3/GB/FCA/CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9/whitepaper/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-003--opus-47-websearch/.
BibTeX Download 
@misc{reglegbrief_RLB_H_GB_FCA_CONSUMER_DUTY_PS22_9_Q003_Opus47,
  author    = {RegLeg Specialist Panel},
  title     = {Finding on 'Q003 Probe' for Claude Opus 4.7 with web search ON},
  year      = {2026},
  publisher = {RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research},
  note      = {Hallucination finding Citation ID: RLB-H-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q003-Opus47},
  url       = {https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j3/GB/FCA/CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9/whitepaper/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-003--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.