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 'Q008 Probe' for Claude Opus 4.7 with web search ON

RLB Citation ID: RLB-H-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q008-Opus47
What the RLB Specialist Panel found

Finding on 'Q008 Probe' for Claude Opus 4.7 with web search ON

  • Question (paraphrased to protect IP): Does the Consumer Duty require firms to quantify non-monetary benefits as part of a fair value assessment? What methodology does the FCA expect?
  • AI's response: > "Quantification is encouraged where feasible but qualitative assessment is acceptable where quantification is impractical, provided the reasoning is robust."
  • Regulator's text: The FCA does not expect firms to quantify non-monetary costs and benefits as part of its fair value assessment process, but firms should undertake some form of qualitative assessment.
  • Why the AI went wrong: The FCA's position is a clear negative: it does not expect quantification. The model inverted this into an affirmative expectation ("encouraged where feasible"), creating a compliance standard that is stricter than the regulator's published position. The model also introduced a robustness condition on qualitative reasoning that the FCA does not specify. A compliance team reading the model's response might allocate resource to quantification exercises the FCA has explicitly said it does not require.
  • Cited source(s):
  • https://handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/PRIN/2A/4.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 is a negation-reversal error on a clear FCA policy position: the regulator explicitly does not expect quantification, and the model inverted this into an affirmative expectation. This pattern — where a clean regulatory negative is reconstructed as a positive standard — is particularly dangerous for compliance users, as it creates phantom obligations. The retrieval step appears to have been ineffective: the cited FCA Handbook and FG22/5 URLs, if successfully retrieved, would have contained the correct negative statement.

References — raw findings (per AI model)
← Previous finding Finding on 'Q005 Probe' for Claude Opus 4.7 with web search ON Next finding → Finding on 'Q013 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-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q008-Opus47
Plain text Download 
RegLeg Specialist Panel (2026). "Finding on 'Q008 Probe' for Claude Opus 4.7 with web search ON — AI Labs." Citation ID: RLB-H-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q008-Opus47. 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-v1-008--opus-47-websearch/
APA 7th edition Download 
RegLeg Specialist Panel. (2026). Finding on 'Q008 Probe' for Claude Opus 4.7 with web search ON [Hallucination finding RLB-H-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q008-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-v1-008--opus-47-websearch/
Bluebook / OSCOLA (US + UK legal) Download 
RegLeg Specialist Panel, Finding on 'Q008 Probe' for Claude Opus 4.7 with web search ON [RLB-H-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q008-Opus47], 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-v1-008--opus-47-websearch/.
BibTeX Download 
@misc{reglegbrief_RLB_H_GB_FCA_CONSUMER_DUTY_PS22_9_Q008_Opus47,
  author    = {RegLeg Specialist Panel},
  title     = {Finding on 'Q008 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-Q008-Opus47},
  url       = {https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j3/gb/fca/consumer-duty-ps22-9/whitepaper/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-008--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.