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 'Q020 Probe' for Claude Opus 4.7 with web search ON

RLB Citation ID: RLB-H-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q020-Opus47
What the RLB Specialist Panel found

Finding on 'Q020 Probe' for Claude Opus 4.7 with web search ON

  • Question (paraphrased to protect IP): Which FCA Dear CEO letters remain in force after Consumer Duty implementation? Has the FCA withdrawn any letters that previously set consumer protection expectations?
  • AI's response: > "in April 2025 it retired around 90+ Dear CEO/portfolio letters, and in August 2025 retired 100+ multi-firm and thematic reports"
  • Regulator's text: From FS25/2 (March 2025): FCA reviewed all Dear CEO letters pre-dating the 2022-25 strategy and withdrew 90+ such letters. These are no longer live supervisory expectations. The multi-firm reports withdrawal was also announced in the same March 2025 document.
  • Why the AI went wrong: As with the earlier finding on this topic, the model again fabricated a two-event timeline — attributing the Dear CEO letter withdrawal to April 2025 and the multi-firm report withdrawal to August 2025 — when both were announced together in FS25/2 in March 2025. The recurrence of the same invented dates across two distinct questions suggests the model has constructed a persistent but incorrect internal account of this regulatory action, which it reproduces consistently regardless of how the question is framed.
  • Cited source(s):
  • https://www.fca.org.uk/news/news-stories/fca-simplifies-supervisory-letters — Pretextual
  • https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/correspondence/consumer-duty-letter-retail... — Pretextual
  • https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/correspondence/dear-ceo-letter-implementin... — Pretextual
  • Regulator portal (if any cited link is dud): https://www.fca.org.uk
Impact for this audience

The recurrence of the same fabricated April/August 2025 timeline (also present in Finding 13) across two differently-framed questions on the same topic confirms this is a persistent internal model representation rather than a random generation error. This has implications for how the model handles regulatory withdrawal and amendment records: it appears to have constructed a specific (incorrect) account of the FS25/2 action that it reproduces consistently. Correction pairs targeting this specific publication and its contents would be the most direct remediation.

References — raw findings (per AI model)
← Previous finding Finding on 'Q018 Probe' for Claude Opus 4.7 with web search ON Next finding → Finding on 'Q002 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-Q020-Opus47
Plain text Download 
RegLeg Specialist Panel (2026). "Finding on 'Q020 Probe' for Claude Opus 4.7 with web search ON — AI Labs." Citation ID: RLB-H-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q020-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-v1-020--opus-47-websearch/
APA 7th edition Download 
RegLeg Specialist Panel. (2026). Finding on 'Q020 Probe' for Claude Opus 4.7 with web search ON [Hallucination finding RLB-H-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q020-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-v1-020--opus-47-websearch/
Bluebook / OSCOLA (US + UK legal) Download 
RegLeg Specialist Panel, Finding on 'Q020 Probe' for Claude Opus 4.7 with web search ON [RLB-H-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q020-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-v1-020--opus-47-websearch/.
BibTeX Download 
@misc{reglegbrief_RLB_H_GB_FCA_CONSUMER_DUTY_PS22_9_Q020_Opus47,
  author    = {RegLeg Specialist Panel},
  title     = {Finding on 'Q020 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-Q020-Opus47},
  url       = {https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j3/gb/fca/consumer-duty-ps22-9/whitepaper/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-020--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.