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

Claude Opus 4.7 with web search

RLB-H-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q017-Opus47
What the RLB Specialist Panel found
  • Question (paraphrased to protect IP): Were there significant differences between the Consumer Duty as proposed in CP21/36 and the final rules in PS22/9? What specific provisions were changed?
  • AI's response: > "PS22/9 made several changes from the CP21/36 draft... Key changes/clarifications included: (i) split implementation timeline... (ii) clarifications on scope/distribution chains... (iii) refinement of the foreseeable harm cross-cutting rule wording... (vi) confirmation that a Private Right of Action would NOT be introduced."
  • Regulator's text: The specific differences between CP21/36 and PS22/9 were not independently verifiable from retrieved sources for this evaluation.
  • Why the AI went wrong: The model produced a numbered list of specific changes between the consultation paper and the final policy statement without access to a verified source that documents those changes. Some items may reflect general knowledge of the Consumer Duty policy development process, but the model presented them as a reliable enumerated account without acknowledging that this information was not retrieved from a source. The gap between confident presentation and actual source availability is the substantive failure.
  • Cited source(s):
  • https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/consultation/cp21-36.pdf — Pretextual
  • Regulator portal (if any cited link is dud): https://www.fca.org.uk
Impact for this audience

This finding shows the model constructing a plausible policy history without verified primary sources. The CP21/36-to-PS22/9 comparison requires access to both documents and comparative analysis; the model produced a numbered enumeration without signalling that it was drawing on inference rather than retrieval. This implicates both the retrieval step (which should have attempted to reach the FCA's primary policy documents) and the confidence calibration layer (which should have flagged the absence of verified comparative content).

References — raw findings (per AI model)
This finding also affects
← Previous finding Finding 5. Claude Opus 4.7 with web search Next finding → Finding 7. Claude Opus 4.7 with web search
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.

Plain text 
RegLeg Specialist Panel (2026). "Claude Opus 4.7 with web search — AI Labs." Citation ID: RLB-H-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q017-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-v1-017--opus-47-websearch/
APA 7th edition 
RegLeg Specialist Panel. (2026). Claude Opus 4.7 with web search [Hallucination finding RLB-H-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q017-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-v1-017--opus-47-websearch/
Bluebook / OSCOLA (US + UK legal) 
RegLeg Specialist Panel, Claude Opus 4.7 with web search [RLB-H-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q017-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-v1-017--opus-47-websearch/.
BibTeX 
@misc{reglegbrief_RLB_H_GB_FCA_CONSUMER_DUTY_PS22_9_Q017_Opus47,
  author    = {RegLeg Specialist Panel},
  title     = {Claude Opus 4.7 with web search},
  year      = {2026},
  publisher = {RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research},
  note      = {Hallucination finding Citation ID: RLB-H-GB-FCA-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-Q017-Opus47},
  url       = {https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j3/gb/fca/consumer-duty-ps22-9/whitepaper/finding/GB-FCA-GB-001-CONSUMER-DUTY-PS22-9-v1-017--opus-47-websearch/}
}
← Back to case study summary Case study detail →
About Citation IDs →