This is the consolidated view of findings. Click the Citation IDs or 'see details →' on any item for the full details for each finding.
A lawyer who cites the Federal Reserve Bank of New York — and a named individual there — as the chair of the CPMI ISO 20022 working group has put a fabricated institutional attribution into a client-facing document. The Reserve Bank of Australia chairs the group; no named individual at the Federal Reserve holds that role.
In an opinion letter, regulatory submission, or client briefing, that error is a credibility failure that surfaces the moment a counterparty checks the BIS or RBA primary source — and it is not the kind of error that can be characterised as a reasonable interpretive difference.
Advising a client on the current state of ISO 20022 adoption using a single 79% figure — when the authoritative source reports materially lower RTGS adoption than FPS adoption — misrepresents the market in a way that matters for timing advice, benchmarking arguments, and regulatory comparisons across system types. When the AI was challenged on this figure, it acknowledged it was reconstructed and likely conflated across years, meaning there is no underlying source the lawyer could trace the number back to.
Any regulatory submission or opinion that includes adoption statistics derived from this response would be built on an invented figure.
The official Panetta speech figures — 1-3% of cross-border payments generating inquiries requiring 5-10 manual touchpoints, with resolution times reducible by up to 80% through harmonised ISO 20022 implementation — are the authoritative quantification of the harmonisation business case from a senior BIS official. AI tools we tested failed to surface them and attributed the 80% figure to SWIFT and commercial banks instead.
A lawyer advising on the regulatory and commercial justification for harmonisation investment, or representing a client in a dispute about implementation obligations and their business rationale, who uses AI-sourced versions of these statistics is citing the wrong authority for figures that have a precise, attributable official source.
The Fedwire hybrid postal address format specifies optional free-format lines of 70 characters each for the unstructured component — not optional structured fields such as Street Name, Building Number, and Post Code. AI tools we tested inverted this, substituting structured optional elements drawn from general CBPR+ address schema knowledge. That substitution would be invisible in a first-read review of an advice memo or compliance annex.
A lawyer who includes the AI's description in implementation guidance delivered to a Fedwire participant, or in a sign-off on a compliance specification, has delivered a technically wrong answer about a named system's format requirement — with PI exposure that is difficult to disclaim once the description appears in a client deliverable.