This is the consolidated view of findings. Click the Citation IDs or 'see details →' on any item for the full details for each finding.
When a Risk team uses AI to brief a CCP or payment-system client on whether Basel- or CRD-compliant regulatory capital qualifies toward the Principle 15 LNAFE buffer, this failure produces a fundamentally wrong qualifying condition — one that requires assets to pass a KC4 liquidity test that KC3 does not impose. A client operating under that framing may include capital that actually qualifies, or exclude it unnecessarily, depending on which version of the AI's self-contradicting answers the team relied on.
For the consulting firm, a Principle 15 capital buffer policy built on this mischaracterisation is a live remediation liability if the error surfaces during an L3 assessment or internal audit.
A Risk team that asks AI for a precise statement of the LNAFE minimum under KC3 — the kind of question that anchors a gap analysis or a board-level Principle 15 summary — receives a 'greater of' dual-track structure that merges KC2's scenario-analysis sizing obligation into KC3's clean six-month floor. This makes the KC3 minimum look more demanding and architecturally complex than it is, and would cause a client to build a capital policy framework around a KC2/KC3 hybrid that has no basis in the rule text.
The error is particularly dangerous for consulting firms because it reads as conservatism — an FMI holding to the more demanding of two tests — when in fact it represents a misread of which provisions live where.