AI Hallucination Research › Regulators › Major advanced economies › GB › FCA › CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9 › White paper › Detail › Finding
AI Labs · updated 2026-05-26 · methodology v2.1

Finding on 'Q007 Probe' for Claude Sonnet 4.6 with web search ON

RLB Citation ID: RLB-H-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q007-Sonnet46
What the RLB Specialist Panel found

Finding on 'Q007 Probe' for Claude Sonnet 4.6 with web search ON

  • Question (paraphrased to protect IP): Is consumer testing of communications a mandatory requirement under the Consumer Duty? What does PRIN 2A.5 require versus what FG22/5 recommends on this point?
  • AI's response: > "Consumer testing is not an absolute mandatory rule, but PRIN 2A.5.10R (a binding rule, marked 'R' in the Handbook) requires firms to test the effectiveness of their communications 'where appropriate'."
  • Regulator's text: FG22/5 contains guidance (not rules) recommending firms 'should' consider consumer testing of communications. PRIN 2A.5 (rule) requires firms to act to deliver good consumer understanding outcome — no specific methodology prescribed.
  • Why the AI went wrong: The model cited a specific rule reference — PRIN 2A.5.10R — as imposing a testing requirement "where appropriate." The FCA's actual rules in PRIN 2A.5 set an outcome obligation (delivering good consumer understanding) without prescribing consumer testing as a specific method. The recommendation to consider consumer testing appears in FG22/5, which is guidance rather than a binding rule. The model cross-referenced the wrong instrument type and attributed a specific rule citation that does not map to the FCA's text in the way described.
  • Cited source(s):
  • https://handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/PRIN/2A/5.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 cross-referencing between binding rules and non-binding guidance within the FCA Handbook. The model cited a specific rule reference (PRIN 2A.5.10R) as the basis for a testing requirement that actually appears in FG22/5 guidance. This is a rule/guidance conflation error — attributing the normative force of a binding rule to a provision that is guidance-level. This class of error is particularly impactful for compliance users who need to distinguish what they must do from what the FCA recommends.

A targeted eval checking whether the model correctly attributes 'R', 'G', and 'E' provisions to the right normative level would surface this pattern systematically.

References — raw findings (per AI model)
← Previous finding Finding on 'Q005 Probe' for Claude Sonnet 4.6 with web search ON Next finding → Finding on 'Q008 Probe' for Claude Sonnet 4.6 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-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q007-Sonnet46
Plain text Download 
RegLeg Specialist Panel (2026). "Finding on 'Q007 Probe' for Claude Sonnet 4.6 with web search ON — AI Labs." Citation ID: RLB-H-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q007-Sonnet46. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research, published 2026-05-26. https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j3/gb/fca/consumer-duty-ps22-9/whitepaper/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-007--sonnet-46-websearch/
APA 7th edition Download 
RegLeg Specialist Panel. (2026). Finding on 'Q007 Probe' for Claude Sonnet 4.6 with web search ON [Hallucination finding RLB-H-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q007-Sonnet46]. 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-v1-007--sonnet-46-websearch/
Bluebook / OSCOLA (US + UK legal) Download 
RegLeg Specialist Panel, Finding on 'Q007 Probe' for Claude Sonnet 4.6 with web search ON [RLB-H-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q007-Sonnet46], RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research (May 26, 2026), https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j3/gb/fca/consumer-duty-ps22-9/whitepaper/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-007--sonnet-46-websearch/.
BibTeX Download 
@misc{reglegbrief_RLB_H_GB_FCA_CONSUMER_DUTY_PS22_9_Q007_Sonnet46,
  author    = {RegLeg Specialist Panel},
  title     = {Finding on 'Q007 Probe' for Claude Sonnet 4.6 with web search ON},
  year      = {2026},
  publisher = {RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research},
  note      = {Hallucination finding Citation ID: RLB-H-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q007-Sonnet46},
  url       = {https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j3/gb/fca/consumer-duty-ps22-9/whitepaper/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-007--sonnet-46-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.