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 Country Reset filters
101 people, organisations and other records · 133 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 ×
Anthropic’s Responsible Scaling Policy v3.3 keeps the footnote saying that where laws such as California SB 53 define “catastrophic risk” or similar terms with specific thresholds, Anthropic addresses those requirements in separate compliance frameworks. Copy claim link
Copy claim reference
Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editor Stated in source Supported
Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source
Subject version v3.3 · Publication date unknown · Effective 2026-05-26 Object version Chaptered (Stats. 2025, ch. 138) · Published 2025-09-29 · Effective 2026-01-01 Date 2026-05-26 · effective Scope and limits The edition’s own statement about SB 53, quoted from it. It names SB 53 and points to separate compliance frameworks; it does not say that the RSP is a framework under the Act. It is not evidence that the edition satisfies the statute, that its publisher is a frontier developer under it, or of implementation or compliance. The record on v3.0 notes the same footnote in the later editions; this record gives v3.3 its own link, as the dataset does for the White House and Seoul links.
The evidence 01 primary source Supports the claim
Responsible Scaling Policy — v3.3 ↗ Anthropic · Publication date unknown
Archived copy, captured 2026-05-28: Responsible Scaling Policy — v3.3 ↗
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
Source excerpt “Where laws such as California SB 53 define this or similar terms with specific thresholds, we address those requirements in separate compliance frameworks.” Location in source Footnote 1 (Introduction), PDF p. 4
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-10-28
Source details and check notes Authors Anthropic Version Responsible Scaling Policy v3.3; effective date 2026-05-26. Version date 2026-05-26 Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-09-18 Language English (en) Archive copy Open archived copy, captured 2026-05-28: Responsible Scaling Policy — v3.3 ↗ . Captured 2 days after the recorded version date. An archive copy shows only what the archive retrieved on 2026-05-28. 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 — v3.3. 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 Candidate pack passage, frameworks to law (research/frameworks-to-law). The quotation (23 words) matched the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-27 and again at admission on 2026-10-28, in a fresh retrieval whose SHA-256 equals the pack’s. Read directly from cdn.sanity.io. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. Same sentence as in v3.0. A cross-family machine check (2026-10-28, item 117) re-read the record’s sources and found full support. No human editorial review. 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 framework or company document explicitly presents itself as fulfilling, implementing, responding to or prepared under a commitment or legal obligation, in its own words. The link is the document’s statement; it is not evidence of compliance.
Date. The edition’s stated effective date.
Record ID fl-link-rsp-v3-3-sb53