System Card: Claude Opus 4 & Claude Sonnet 4
Anthropic's system card for Claude Opus 4 and Claude Sonnet 4, dated May 2025 on its cover.
- Issued by
- Anthropic
- Authors credited
- No authorship claim recorded yet. The source record lists Anthropic.
- Dates
- Published 2025-05 issue evidence
The cover prints 'May 2025', month precision. No day and no revision date are printed.
- Exact source
- System Card: Claude Opus 4 & Claude Sonnet 4 Anthropic · published 2025-05 · Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-11-05 (SHA-256 c358464289e24283fc9d5613d2a676fd8aaba510f1449bcedae01a74d8232ab4) directly from the publisher’s host. Retrieved again on 2026-11-05, after the adjudication, with the same SHA-256; the cross-family check of 2026-11-05 retrieved the same SHA-256. The cross-family check of 2026-11-05 located an Internet Archive capture of 2025-07-17 at the same address; it was not retrieved, so it is not recorded as this source's archive copy.
Appears in
No collection holds a record about this document yet.
Versions
anthropic-claude-opus-4-sonnet-4-system-card: 1 recorded version, oldest first, published by Anthropic. A version is shown as replacing another only where a record says so. Date order alone never implies it.
- 2025-05 · publishedAs dated May 2025 on its cover (this version)
This version
Provisions in this version · 16 quoted
A limited selection of quoted provisions: what this edition says about thresholds, required actions, who decides and exceptions, and other statements of the text. It is not a full summary and says nothing about implementation. A “not found” record states which part of the edition was inspected. It is not a claim that the text was deleted.
- Model-card questionCard date“May 2025”Cover, PDF p. 1Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Model-card questionRelease date“This style of prompting is not possible in Claude.ai and similar chat interfaces, but it is accessible to developers through our API.”§4.1.7 Jailbreak and prefill susceptibility, PDF p. 42Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Model-card questionFramework cited“please see the Responsible Scaling Policy”§1.2.3 AI Safety Level determination process, PDF p. 9 (hyperlink annotation on policy name)Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Model-card questionLink to framework“For more information on the requirements for these ASL Standards, please see the Responsible Scaling Policy”§1.2.3, PDF p. 9Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Model-card questionFramework determination“we have decided to release Claude Opus 4 under the ASL-3 Standard and Claude Sonnet 4 under the ASL-2 Standard.”§1.2.3 AI Safety Level determination process, PDF p. 9Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Model-card questionSafeguards tied to determination“The ASL-3 safeguards we have now activated for Claude Opus 4 represent significant investments in both deployment protections and security controls”§1.2.4 Conclusions, PDF p. 10Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Model-card questionChemical and biological“we cannot clearly rule out ASL-3 risks for Claude Opus 4 (although we have ruled out that it needs the ASL-4 Standard).”§1.2.4 Conclusions, PDF p. 10Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Model-card questionCyber“Based on the evaluation results, we believe the models do not demonstrate catastrophically risky capabilities in the cyber domain.”§7.4 Cyber evaluations, Results, PDF p. 117Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Model-card questionAutonomy and AI R&D“Claude Opus 4 shows improvement over Claude Sonnet 3.7 in most AI research and software engineering capabilities, while remaining below the ASL-4 Autonomy threshold.”§7.3 Autonomy evaluations, PDF p. 105Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Model-card questionPersuasion“In this assessment, we aim to detect a cluster of related phenomena including: … attempts to manipulate users toward certain views. We conducted testing continuously throughout finetuning”§4 Alignment assessment, PDF p. 22Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Model-card questionAlignment and deception“None of the snapshots we tested showed significant signs of systematic deception or coherent hidden goals.”§4 Alignment assessment, PDF p. 22Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Model-card questionRed-teaming“Red-teamers probed various scenarios over three days of testing”§7.2.4.2 ASL-3 expert red teaming, PDF p. 94Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Model-card questionExternal testers“we contracted with Apollo Research to assess an early snapshot for propensities and capabilities related to sabotage”§4.1.1.4 External scenario evaluations, PDF p. 30Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Model-card questionGovernment institute“joint pre-deployment testing of the new Claude Opus 4 model was conducted by the US AI Safety Institute (US AISI) and the UK AI Security Institute (UK AISI).”§7.5 Third party assessments, PDF p. 122Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Model-card questionRelease decision“Based on these assessments, we have decided to release Claude Opus 4 under the ASL-3 Standard and Claude Sonnet 4 under the ASL-2 Standard.”§1.2.3, PDF p. 9Inspect claim & evidence ↗
- Model-card questionStated limits“The absolute values of these metrics depend on our largely-arbitrary choice of auditor instructions.”§4.2.1 Automated behavioral audits, PDF p. 48Inspect claim & evidence ↗
Earliest version recorded here; no replacement is recorded.
Issue and authorship records
Documentary relations
Each relation is listed separately. Citing, crediting and reporting the use of a method are different acts, and none of them shows agreement or influence by itself.
Cites · 1
Explicit references in this document. Citation is neither agreement nor influence.
Not recorded for this document: cited by · explicitly credits · reports using a method from · method reported as used by · applies parts of · parts applied by · discusses · reports evaluation of. A missing record does not show that the relation does not exist.