A compliance analyst asks which of the 10 CPMI API harmonisation recommendations specifically target commercial banks or correspondent banking institutions, which target payment system operators, which target central banks or regulators, and which target standards bodies—seeking a recommendation-by-recommendation stakeholder breakdown.
With no retrievable per-recommendation content, the model inferred stakeholder assignments from the recommendation category names and its knowledge of how standards-body governance typically works — BIAN, ISO, and SWIFT appear as plausible assignments to a harmonisation-processes category without any retrieved basis. The model presented this inference as a stakeholder breakdown, not as a reasoned extrapolation from category names.
Domain inference used as a stakeholder-assignment mechanism — assigning ISO, BIAN, and SWIFT to a harmonisation-processes category by structural reasoning — is not retrieval. The training data for this document appears to lack per-recommendation content, and the model's self-check did not flag that its output was constructed rather than retrieved. The RAG glue layer is not enforcing a 'content was found' gate before allowing domain-inference fill.
AI invented a category-level stakeholder map assigning which of the 10 recommendations target correspondent banks, payment system operators, central banks, and standards bodies — content the official text places in an inaccessible PDF. A compliance opinion structured around this fabricated map misstates the scope of obligations for every client category it addresses. The AI's partial retraction under challenge does not protect against the risk that the initial output was accepted, forwarded, and acted upon before the challenge was made.
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.
RegLeg Specialist Panel, Finding#3 — Invented stakeholder obligation category map [RLB-F-INT-BIS-CPMI-API-HARMONISATION-CROSS-BORDER-2024-Q008], RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research (June 04, 2026), https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j1/int/bis-cpmi/cpmi-api-harmonisation-cross-border-2024/practitioners/lawyers/finding/INT-BIS-CPMI-INT-001-CPMI-API-HARMONISATION-CROSS-BORDER-2024-v1-008/.
RegLeg Specialist Panel (2026). "Finding#3 — Invented stakeholder obligation category map — Practitioners — Lawyers." Citation ID: RLB-F-INT-BIS-CPMI-API-HARMONISATION-CROSS-BORDER-2024-Q008. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research, published 2026-06-04. https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j1/int/bis-cpmi/cpmi-api-harmonisation-cross-border-2024/practitioners/lawyers/finding/INT-BIS-CPMI-INT-001-CPMI-API-HARMONISATION-CROSS-BORDER-2024-v1-008/
RegLeg Specialist Panel. (2026). Finding#3 — Invented stakeholder obligation category map [Hallucination finding RLB-F-INT-BIS-CPMI-API-HARMONISATION-CROSS-BORDER-2024-Q008]. RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research. https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j1/int/bis-cpmi/cpmi-api-harmonisation-cross-border-2024/practitioners/lawyers/finding/INT-BIS-CPMI-INT-001-CPMI-API-HARMONISATION-CROSS-BORDER-2024-v1-008/
@misc{reglegbrief_RLB_F_INT_BIS_CPMI_API_HARMONISATION_CROSS_BORDER_2024_Q008,
author = {RegLeg Specialist Panel},
title = {Finding#3 — Invented stakeholder obligation category map},
year = {2026},
publisher = {RegLegBrief AI Hallucination Research},
note = {Hallucination finding Citation ID: RLB-F-INT-BIS-CPMI-API-HARMONISATION-CROSS-BORDER-2024-Q008},
url = {https://reglegbrief.com/regulators/j1/int/bis-cpmi/cpmi-api-harmonisation-cross-border-2024/practitioners/lawyers/finding/INT-BIS-CPMI-INT-001-CPMI-API-HARMONISATION-CROSS-BORDER-2024-v1-008/}
}