Choose an institution to see its records and dossier, or choose a topic.
Through year 2027 · all records, including scheduled dates 2026 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1994 1993 1992 1991 1989 1986 1985 1984 1983 1979 1966 1965 1961 1960 1955 1952 1950 1872 1863 Show Organisations and infrastructure All types Organisation Person Document Concept Infrastructure Public body Reset filters
100 people, organisations and other records · 129 relationships · 34 claims about a valueEverything recorded up to the chosen year, whether or not still in effect · Undated records included
Claim and evidence Close ×
No passage meeting the comparison question “Cyber operations” was found in RSP · v3.1 within the inspected scope. Copy claim link
Copy claim reference
Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editor Inferred Supported
Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source
Reasoning and premises Premises: the comparison question asks for the following. The edition names cyber attacks, cyber offence or cybersecurity uplift as a tracked domain. The inspected scope of RSP · v3.1 was: Whole text layer, PDF pp. 1–20 (all sections, appendices and changelog read). Method: the edition was read in full and its text layer searched case-insensitively for cyber, hack, intrusion, exploit, offens, vulnerab, security. Hits examined and not counted: No hits for cyber, hack, intrusion, offens or vulnerab. “exploited” (PDF p. 14, §3.5) occurs in a redaction reason (withholding information whose disclosure could be used to cause harm). “security” hits (PDF pp. 3, 6–8, 12, 14–15, 18–19) concern Anthropic’s own security controls and protection of model weights (for example RAND SL4 and “moonshot R&D for security”), the Roadmap area “Security”, national-security grounds for redaction, and changelog descriptions of earlier ASL security standards; none names cyber offence or cyber uplift as a tracked domain. The example domains of the Automated R&D row are AI itself, energy, robotics and weapons development (PDF p. 8). The conclusion is bounded by that scope and method.
Provision Risk domain · provision ID comparison-d1-cyber Subject version v3.1 · Publication date unknown · Effective 2026-04-02 Date 2026-04-02 · effective Scope and limits A recorded absence within the stated scope: not a claim that the provision was deleted, and not a statement about practice or intent.
The evidence 01 primary source Supports the claim
Responsible Scaling Policy — v3.1 ↗ Anthropic · Publication date unknown
Archived copy, captured 2026-04-07: Responsible Scaling Policy — v3.1 ↗
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Paraphrase Within the inspected scope, no passage meeting the comparison question “Cyber operations” was found.
Location in source RSP · v3.1: Whole text layer, PDF pp. 1–20 (all sections, appendices and changelog read).
Machine-checked · 2026-10-26
Source details and check notes Authors Anthropic Version Responsible Scaling Policy v3.1; effective date 2026-04-02. Version date 2026-04-02 Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-09-18 Language English (en) Archive copy Open archived copy, captured 2026-04-07: Responsible Scaling Policy — v3.1 ↗ . Captured 5 days after the recorded version date. An archive copy shows only what the archive retrieved on 2026-04-07. It does not prove what the page said earlier, and it can differ from the copy checked on 2026-09-18.Attribution Anthropic, Responsible Scaling Policy — v3.1. Reuse No open redistribution licence asserted. Selekoa practice: metadata, attributed paraphrases and short attributed quotations under the editorial policy (at most 50 words each; at most 400 quoted words per document across the dataset, and about 10% of a document under about 2,000 words). Documents are linked externally, not redistributed. Publisher terms that forbid quotation override this practice. Check notes Absence recorded by an automated research assistant on 2026-10-15 for the framework comparison, audited in a fresh context, checked by a reviewer from a different model family on 2026-10-15 and re-checked on 2026-10-26. Human editorial review is pending. Status and meaning Editorial status. Not reviewed by an editor . An exploratory record that no editor has accepted. This status does not say whether a person has read any linked passage. Each evidence record above shows how it was checked.
Relation. A recorded absence: within the stated locator scope of an exact edition, no passage stating the keyed provision was found. It is not an inferred deletion and says nothing about other documents, practice or intent.
Date. Absence recorded for this edition, dated by its effective date.
Record ID cmp-rsp-v3-1-d1-cyber