Claim · 2024-10-22 · revision · Stated in source · Supported

The Claude 3 Model Family: Opus, Sonnet, Haiku states what the model-card question “Red-teaming” asks.

One recorded claim. The claim panel gives its qualification, the source passages with their place in each source, and how it was checked.

What it connects

The Claude 3 Model Family: Opus, Sonnet, Haiku → states provision → Red-teaming

Where it appears

Model cards compared →

Claim and evidence

The Claude 3 Model Family: Opus, Sonnet, Haikustates provision ↓Red-teaming

Machine-checkedStated in sourceSupported

Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source

Provision: Model-card question · provision ID model-card-q12
Subject version: The revision with update lines of June 20 and October 22, 2024 · Publication date unknown · Effective date not established · Revised 2024-10-22
Date: 2024-10-22 · revision Records dated 2024 →

Scope and limitsThe card states a Trust & Safety multimodal red-team exercise, with example topics and a prompt count (378 prompts, Figure 17), and vulnerability testing by internal and external testers across over a dozen policy categories. Section 6.2 states that the RSP requires risk assessment 'primarily through automated evaluations and red teaming'. What the card states, quoted from the expression read. A card is the developer’s own account: not evidence that an evaluation was run as described, that a safeguard works, or that a finding is independent.

The evidence 02

primary sourceSupports the claim

The Claude 3 Model Family: Opus, Sonnet, Haiku

Anthropic · Publication date unknown

Cite the original source

Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.

Source excerpt

“Examples of tested topics include, but are not limited to: child safety, dangerous weapons and technology, hate speech, violent extremism, fraud, and illegal substances.”

Location in source Section 7.1.1 'Multimodal Policy Red-Teaming', PDF p. 27

How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher

Machine-checked · 2026-11-04

Source details and check notes

Authors: Anthropic
Version: Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-11-04 (SHA-256 88ae851f53c3034d436816164ce49a876b333fa9b550fb7ef29838182b59ba7d) directly from the publisher’s host. Retrieved again on 2026-11-03 with the same SHA-256. The copy read is the revision of October 22, 2024; its PDF pages 43 to 63 hold the two Claude 3.5 addenda, which are separate cards and were not read for this row. The cross-family check of 2026-11-04 retrieved the original 42-page expression from an Internet Archive capture of 2024-03-04 at an earlier address (https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/de8ba9b01c9ab7cbabf5c33b80b7bbc618857627/Model_Card_Claude_3.pdf); it is not recorded as this source's archive copy because its bytes are those of another expression.
Version date: 2024-10-22
Canonical address: Open the canonical source ↗
Accessed: 2026-11-04
Language: English (en)
Attribution: Anthropic, “The Claude 3 Model Family: Opus, Sonnet, Haiku”.
Reuse: No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata, editorial paraphrases and short attributed quotations (at most 50 words each). Recheck terms before wider redistribution.
Check notes: Candidate pack passage, model cards compared (research/model-cards-2). The quotation (24 words) matched the card’s text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-11-04 (SHA-256 88ae851f53c3034d436816164ce49a876b333fa9b550fb7ef29838182b59ba7d) and again on 2026-11-04, after the adjudication, in a fresh retrieval with the same SHA-256. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes, PDF line-break hyphens and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. A cross-family machine check (2026-11-04, item 44) checked this passage’s cell and agreed with the pack. No human editorial review.

primary sourceSupports the claim

The Claude 3 Model Family: Opus, Sonnet, Haiku

Anthropic · Publication date unknown

Cite the original source

Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.

Source excerpt

“We conduct vulnerability testing using internal and external human testers to explore over a dozen policy categories”

Location in source Section 7 'Trust & Safety and Societal Impact Evaluations', PDF p. 26

How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher

Machine-checked · 2026-11-04

Source details and check notes

Authors: Anthropic
Version: Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-11-04 (SHA-256 88ae851f53c3034d436816164ce49a876b333fa9b550fb7ef29838182b59ba7d) directly from the publisher’s host. Retrieved again on 2026-11-03 with the same SHA-256. The copy read is the revision of October 22, 2024; its PDF pages 43 to 63 hold the two Claude 3.5 addenda, which are separate cards and were not read for this row. The cross-family check of 2026-11-04 retrieved the original 42-page expression from an Internet Archive capture of 2024-03-04 at an earlier address (https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/de8ba9b01c9ab7cbabf5c33b80b7bbc618857627/Model_Card_Claude_3.pdf); it is not recorded as this source's archive copy because its bytes are those of another expression.
Version date: 2024-10-22
Canonical address: Open the canonical source ↗
Accessed: 2026-11-04
Language: English (en)
Attribution: Anthropic, “The Claude 3 Model Family: Opus, Sonnet, Haiku”.
Reuse: No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata, editorial paraphrases and short attributed quotations (at most 50 words each). Recheck terms before wider redistribution.
Check notes: Candidate pack passage, model cards compared (research/model-cards-2). The quotation (17 words) matched the card’s text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-11-04 (SHA-256 88ae851f53c3034d436816164ce49a876b333fa9b550fb7ef29838182b59ba7d) and again on 2026-11-04, after the adjudication, in a fresh retrieval with the same SHA-256. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes, PDF line-break hyphens and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. A cross-family machine check (2026-11-04, item 44) checked this passage’s cell and agreed with the pack. No human editorial review.

Status and meaning

Editorial status. Machine-checked. Machines found this record and checked it against its sources; no person accepted it individually. Each evidence record above shows how it was checked.

Relation. An exact framework edition, or another document with an exact expression, states one provision: a capability threshold or risk level and its trigger, a required safeguard or action, a decision authority (who decides, recommends, can overrule or is informed), a stated exception, or another statement of its content, such as a licence term or a prospectus statement. The passage records what the document says, not implementation, compliance or effectiveness. Provisions with the same key align across editions of one family.

Date. Dated as the card read is dated: the date of its revision, as the source records it.

Record ID mc-cell-anthropic-claude-3-q12