LLM hallucinations are a compliance problem
The demo works. The model sounds sure. Then legal asks: where did sentence three come from? Nobody can show it.
That is where AI projects die in regulated shops. Not at the model. At missing source grounding.
What hallucination means here
The model delivers a paragraph that reads like the standard. The clause does not exist. Or it exists and says something else. In a chat about recipes that is annoying. In an audit finding or patient information it is a compliance case.
I see this regularly. Teams tune the prompt. The rate drops a bit. Legal's question stays the same: can you prove the claim?
Source grounding, not gut feel
RAG alone is not enough. Vector search fetches similar chunks. Similar is not proven.
What I need in projects:
Sounds simple. In practice point 2 is often missing. The model fills gaps because the prompt says "be helpful". Helpful without a source is the opposite in an audit.
Why prompt tuning does not solve it
You can forbid the model to guess. It still guesses, only more politely. Without a retrieval layer with a hard rule (no source, no claim) this stays a wish.
Evaluation makes the rest visible. A prompt or model change can double the hallucination rate. If nobody measures, the auditor notices first.
What I check in such a review
That is LLM traceability. LangGraph or LangChain are tools. The rule sits in the flow: retrieve, check, then write.
Who this is for
If you want a demo, you do not need this. If you want to go live and legal sits in the building, you need it before rollout. That is where the buy happens.
Practice: the audit assistant and the healthcare chatbot. For a read of the estate before rollout: architecture reviews.
If you are at that point: the LLM readiness check is five days, in writing, with no obligation to continue.
Related articles
GDPR and data residency once an LLM is in the loop
Where does the model run, where do embeddings and logs sit? The technical list that makes a privacy review of an AI system possible.
Read articleThe EU AI Act from the seat of the person building the system
Traceability, human oversight, documentation: what an engineer can contribute to the AI Act, and where the legal classification begins.
Read articleA call
30 minutes. If the use case does not belong in production, I'll say so.