Claim · 2025-12-05 · revision · Stated in source · Supported

System Card: Claude Opus 4.5 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

System Card: Claude Opus 4.5 → states provision → Red-teaming

Where it appears

No collection page holds this claim. It is listed with its records in the explorer.

Claim and evidence

System Card: Claude Opus 4.5states provision ↓Red-teaming

Machine-checkedStated in sourceSupported

Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source

Provision: Model-card question · provision ID model-card-q12
Subject version: As dated November 2025 on its cover, with changelog entries to December 5, 2025 · Published 2025-11 · Effective date not established · Revised 2025-12-05
Date: 2025-12-05 · revision Records dated 2025 →

Scope and limitsThe card states biological red-teaming by third parties, by one external expert over two days (Section 7.2.4.9) and by CAISI over a one-week window; prompt-injection red-teaming with Gray Swan (Section 5.2); and that cyber capabilities are red-teamed (Section 7.4). 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

System Card: Claude Opus 4.5

Anthropic · 2025-11

Cite the original source

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

Source excerpt

“We worked with the US Center for AI Standards and Innovation to red-team Claude Opus 4.5 over a one-week window, which included at least 2–3 days of red-teaming.”

Location in source Section 7.2.4.10 'ASL-4 red teaming with the CAISI', PDF p. 132

How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher

Machine-checked · 2026-11-03

Source details and check notes

Authors: Anthropic
Version: Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-11-02 (SHA-256 33be92efcb58f901d9d2c17e61bf277afbd514a1ac70a642f21e918c21ca25a8) directly from the publisher’s host. Retrieved again on 2026-11-03 with the same SHA-256.
Version date: 2025-12-05
Canonical address: Open the canonical source ↗
Accessed: 2026-11-02
Language: English (en)
Attribution: Anthropic, “System Card: Claude Opus 4.5”, 2025-11.
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). The quotation (28 words) matched the card’s text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-11-02 (SHA-256 33be92efcb58f901d9d2c17e61bf277afbd514a1ac70a642f21e918c21ca25a8) and again on 2026-11-03 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. No human editorial review.

primary sourceSupports the claim

System Card: Claude Opus 4.5

Anthropic · 2025-11

Cite the original source

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

Source excerpt

“Finally, red-teaming results by various third parties demonstrated some increase in risk, but not enough to require additional protections.”

Location in source Section 7.2 'CBRN evaluations', 'Claude Opus 4.5 Results', PDF p. 119

How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher

Machine-checked · 2026-11-03

Source details and check notes

Authors: Anthropic
Version: Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-11-02 (SHA-256 33be92efcb58f901d9d2c17e61bf277afbd514a1ac70a642f21e918c21ca25a8) directly from the publisher’s host. Retrieved again on 2026-11-03 with the same SHA-256.
Version date: 2025-12-05
Canonical address: Open the canonical source ↗
Accessed: 2026-11-02
Language: English (en)
Attribution: Anthropic, “System Card: Claude Opus 4.5”, 2025-11.
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). The quotation (19 words) matched the card’s text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-11-02 (SHA-256 33be92efcb58f901d9d2c17e61bf277afbd514a1ac70a642f21e918c21ca25a8) and again on 2026-11-03 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. 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-opus-4-5-q12