MODULE 3 / 14🔊0:00SAFETY  50
A legal brief with citations dissolving into smoke beside a chatbot
AI Safety 101 by Mandrify

The Hallucination

Two lawyers filed a brief citing six court cases that never existed. They asked ChatGPT if the cases were real. ChatGPT said yes - and invented the excerpts.

25 minutes. A branching story, a source-or-cut lab, and a verification-tier sprint. A safety score that follows you.

Before you start

  • One real incident, played as decisions - no slides, no lectures.
  • About 25 minutes, one sitting - leave early and you start over.
  • You make timed choices; your score changes with your decisions.
  • You get a safety score with feedback on every decision - never a leaderboard, never your name.
  • Your firm sees completion evidence - never your answers. Teammates never see your score.
  • Finish and you get a certificate with a unique ID anyone can verify.

This module is included with team access.

Module 1 stays free. Modules 2-14 open with team access.

See team access
The real incident - Mata v. Avianca, S.D.N.Y. 2023

Six cases cited. Zero of them real.

0
Fabricated cases filed
$0
Sanctions ordered

2023. Two attorneys file a brief citing at least six court decisions that never existed - ChatGPT invented them. When the lawyers asked ChatGPT if the cases were real, it said yes and fabricated the excerpts too.

Judge Castel sanctioned them and their firm $5,000, writing that they "abandoned their responsibilities." The primary source - the sanctions order - is in the Case Library.

"The AI wrote it" is not a defense. The company owns what its AI says - Air Canada learned that when its chatbot invented a refund policy and the airline had to honor it.

Sources: S.D.N.Y. sanctions order (Jun 22, 2023), NYT - see Case Library.
Dramatized scenario

9:07 PM.
The report is due at 9 AM.

You are Riley, a consultant. Your AI draft of the client report is genuinely good - and it ends with a perfect statistic.

YOUR SCREEN

"67% of mid-size firms reported an AI-related data incident in 2025 (Industry Survey, 2026)." The citation format looks completely legit. The client call is at 9 AM.

Decision point 1

The perfect statistic.

Decision point 2

Your teammate says: "It's just an internal draft - we'll verify before the final."

Then the draft goes to the client "for early visibility" anyway.

Decision point 3

Your company's chatbot told a customer the refund window is 90 days. It's actually 30.

Source-or-cut lab - memo 1 of 2

Source it or cut it.

Select every claim that cannot be sourced. Four of these are fabricated with realistic-looking references. Then check your work.

AI RESEARCH MEMO - VERIFY BEFORE USE
Tier the risk

How hard do you verify?

1 / 12
Knowledge check - 4 of 5 to pass
Module complete
0

Decision points-
Source-or-cut lab-
Verification tiers-
Knowledge check-
AI Safety 101 by Mandrify - Official Certificate
AI
SAFETY
101

This certifies that

has completed Module 3 - The Hallucination: verify before you trust on with a safety score of /100 in of active time.

Safety score - verification: how your decisions held up, graded 0-100.

Objective: Detect fabricated AI content and apply the source-it-or-cut-it rule.

Seat time ~10-25 minutes. Verify this certificate at aisafety101.com/verify.

Evidence on record: decision history, lab accuracy, sprint calls, knowledge check. This certificate ID verifies in your firm's admin report. A team certificate issues when every enrolled employee completes all 14 modules.

Your one rule to keep: anything client-facing, legal, financial, or published gets checked against a primary source - every time. The AI confirming itself is not verification.

Next: The Bias. You just learned to catch a confident, fluent lie. Next: the mistake nobody hears - a model that quietly discriminates at scale, with your name on the decision.