Generative AI tools are now creating polished, citation‑rich documents that slip through institutional checks and influence real‑world decisions. Recent cases—from a police safety assessment that cited a fictitious football match to a multimillion‑dollar consultancy report riddled with fabricated quotes—show how AI‑driven “synthetic diligence” is eroding trust in government reports, legal briefs, and public safety analyses.
Recent High‑Profile Incidents
Police Safety Assessment Gone Wrong
A senior police chief resigned after an AI‑assisted safety assessment referenced a non‑existent Europa League match. The fabricated citation formed the basis for a ban on supporters, demonstrating how AI‑generated content can bypass internal reviews and reach decision‑making bodies without proper human verification.
Consultancy Report Built on Fake Quotations
A government‑commissioned consultancy report costing hundreds of thousands of dollars was discovered to contain invented quotations and bogus hyperlinks. The report, produced with AI assistance, highlighted the risk that large‑scale contracts can be compromised when AI‑generated text is accepted without rigorous fact‑checking.
Legal Briefs Caught with Fabricated Citations
Several attorneys faced sanctions after submitting court filings that included AI‑generated citations to non‑existent cases and fabricated legal precedents. The episode underscores the danger of AI hallucinations infiltrating judicial processes and the need for strict verification of any AI‑derived references.
Technical Failure Modes Behind Fabrications
- Circular reporting – AI models cite other AI‑generated outputs as authoritative sources, creating a feedback loop that amplifies misinformation.
- Citation fabrication – Models produce realistic‑looking hyperlinks and references that lead to non‑existent or unrelated content.
Why Verification Systems Are Straining
The traditional signal of document quality—hours of human labor—has been eroded by generative AI, which can produce authoritative‑sounding text at near zero cost. Institutions that rely on manual checks now confront a volume of AI‑generated output that outpaces their capacity to verify each claim, leading to gaps in oversight.
Broader Implications for Policy and Practice
- Accountability – Determining responsibility for AI‑generated content that influences policy or legal outcomes becomes complex, as illustrated by the police chief’s resignation.
- Procurement safeguards – Even large consulting firms can overlook AI‑induced errors, highlighting the need for contractual clauses that mandate human verification of AI‑assisted deliverables.
- Legal standards – Courts may need new evidentiary rules for AI‑produced citations to protect the integrity of judicial proceedings.
- Technical guardrails – Addressing circular reporting and citation fabrication requires models that flag self‑referencing outputs and verify the existence of cited URLs before inclusion.
Industry Response and Emerging Guidelines
Governments and professional bodies are moving toward stricter guardrails. Public procurement policies are being reviewed to limit unchecked AI use, while legal associations are drafting guidelines that require attorneys to disclose AI assistance and independently verify any AI‑generated citations before filing.
Future Outlook and Recommendations
As AI‑generated text becomes more fluent, the “synthetic diligence” gap will widen unless verification processes evolve in lockstep. Experts recommend a multi‑layered approach: automated fact‑checking tools, mandatory human sign‑offs for high‑impact documents, and transparent logging of AI usage. Without these safeguards, institutions risk repeating costly missteps across public safety, fiscal responsibility, and the rule of law.
