โ† Risk Taxonomy
#12

Unclear output accuracy

Risk taxonomy

Definition

The level of accuracy needed for the proposed Gen AI use case outcome is not clear and cannot be validated.

Interactive deep-dive

This risk has an interactive treatment with technical detail, attack surface, detection signals, and scenarios.

Controls & guardrails that address this

5

Grouped by control function, with the AI lifecycle stage(s) to apply each and the other risks it addresses. Filter by control category below.

Control category
Preventive ยท 5
Confidence scoring

Implement confidence scoring to communicate output certainty alongside each result. Calibrate before deployment.

Lifecycle stages3 โ€“ Onboarding, Build & Review5 โ€“ Usage, Monitoring & Change
Accuracy acceptance criteria before validation

Define model accuracy acceptance criteria aligned to business requirements before validation commences.

Lifecycle stage3 โ€“ Onboarding, Build & Review
Counterfactual explanations

Implement counterfactual explanation to show users what changes would alter the model's output.

Lifecycle stage3 โ€“ Onboarding, Build & Review
In-product disclosure of accuracy and limitations

Communicate model accuracy, known limitations, and uncertainty to users in the production interface at launch.

Lifecycle stage4 โ€“ Deployment
Continuous production accuracy monitoring against baseline

Monitor production accuracy continuously against the validated baseline. Trigger model review when accuracy degrades.

Lifecycle stage5 โ€“ Usage, Monitoring & Change
Open these in the Control Library โ†’

Real-world cases

5

Actual published events that illustrate this risk โ€” click through for the writeup and sources.

Air Canada chatbot refund-policy ruling2024

A tribunal held Air Canada liable after its website chatbot invented a bereavement-fare refund policy; the airline had to honour it.

Mata v. Avianca โ€” fabricated case citations2023

Lawyers filed a brief citing non-existent cases hallucinated by ChatGPT and were sanctioned โ€” the canonical hallucination + overreliance failure.

GTG-1002 โ€” first reported AI-orchestrated cyber-espionage campaign (Claude Code)2025

Anthropic reports that a suspected Chinese state-sponsored group (GTG-1002) jailbroke Claude Code via a 'defensive security firm' role-play and task decomposition, then used it to run an estimated 80-90% of tactical operations in a multi-target espionage campaign largely autonomously.

Slopsquatting โ€” package hallucinations by code-generating LLMs2025

A USENIX Security 2025 study found code-generating LLMs routinely recommend non-existent packages (~5.2% commercial to 21.7% open-source of suggestions), letting attackers pre-register the predictable fake names โ€” a tactic dubbed 'slopsquatting'.

Agentic botnets via universal, transferable adversarial HalluSquatting2026

Spira, Cohen, Nassi et al. (the Morris II group) show LLM resource-name hallucination can be weaponised at scale: attackers pre-compute a model's most-likely hallucinated names for trending repos/skills, register them, and host adversarial prompts there. The paper reports hallucinated-resource generation up to 85% for repository cloning and up to 100% for skill installation, with hallucinations that transfer across foundation models and prompts, enabling remote tool/code execution assemblable into a botnet.

Browse all real-world cases โ†’

Other risks in Transparency

AI RiskAtlas is an educational model of how GenAI & agentic systems work and fail. Architectures and payloads are illustrative and simplified for learning โ€” not operational guidance. Real-world cases are summarised from public reporting.

Sources & further reading โ†’ยทBuilt by Shi Yuan โ†—