UK AISI → Anthropic

1.0.0-rc.1 · Evidence cutoff 12 September 2026

Directly documented interface

Evaluation

Named evaluator performed a model-specific exercise.

evaluator → provider. Evaluator → provider; unpublished findings remain unavailable.

Displayed claim → analysis (if present) → coded attributes → interface / instrument → atomic evidence → source version

Instrument and timeline

Instrument: Claude 3.5 Sonnet evaluation
Bindingness: No regulatory power inferred
Announced: Unknown
Observed by: 2024-11-19 · upper-bound
Effective period: Unknown → Unknown
Event: Conducted
Status at cutoff: historical event only
Last confirmation: 2024-11-19

Model-release dates conflict within the full report; report publication supplies conservative upper bound. No exact testing date asserted.

Evaluator → provider; unpublished findings remain unavailable.
Continuity through cutoff unresolved.

Status investigation

Checked 2026-09-12; assessed as of 2026-09-12. Last confirmation does not establish uninterrupted continuity.

amendments: unknown
expiry: unknown
termination: investigated within listed sources
restrictions: investigated within listed sources
succession: see succession.json
conflicts: Model-release dates conflict within the full report; report publication supplies conservative upper bound. No exact testing date asserted.

Search queries

"UK AISI" "anthropic" evaluation 2026 amendment termination expiry status before:2026-09-13

Analytical assessment

Evaluation constrained by access

Reviewed analytical assessment

The 2024 evaluation was substantive but constrained by its access and testing window.

Independent evaluation conclusions are materially bounded by documented access/time limits for an identified exercise.

Derivation rule: All conditions necessary; their conjunction sufficient for the bounded assessment, not for global provider dependence.

The 2024 evaluation was substantive but constrained by its access and testing window.

completed-independent-test: established. See linked evidence and rubric-bound reasoning. Evidence: independent-tests Evidence: access-limits
explicit-access-limitation: established. See linked evidence and rubric-bound reasoning. Evidence: independent-tests Evidence: access-limits
bounded-inference: established. See linked evidence and rubric-bound reasoning. Evidence: independent-tests Evidence: access-limits

Necessary conditions: met. Sufficient conditions: met.

Historical exercise only; not current provider dependence, regulatory authority, or compromised findings.
Report does not establish who caused the time limit.

Coded attributes

evaluation-capacity: substantial-access-constrained

Ability to design and execute a substantive assessment independently, conditional on access.

Evaluator × evaluation exercise or programme × date. Claude 3.5 Sonnet 2024 pre-deployment exercise; assessed 2024-11-19.

Completed independent tests establish capacity; explicit limited testing access narrows conclusions. Independently run assessments counters inference of provider-directed findings.

Supporting evidence: independent-tests access-limits . Counterevidence: independent-tests

Coding applies only to stated context and date, not a permanent institutional rank.

Published rubric anchors

absent: Affirmative evidence of no ability to perform this assessment.
nascent: Initial methods/team with no completed substantive assessment.
substantial-access-constrained: Completed independent assessment with documented access or time constraints materially limiting conclusions.
substantial-durable-access: Completed assessment and enforceable/reproducible access sufficient for the task over its defined period.

Unresolved when necessary evidence is missing or adjacent anchors cannot be distinguished. No numeric conversion. Absence requires affirmative remit or operational evidence, not missing sources.

technical-control: shared-constrained

Practical ability to alter the model, its availability, or safeguards in the specified deployment. Contract clauses alone are insufficient.

Actor × exact model/deployment × period. Anthropic provision and replacement of Claude models for DoW, contrasted with deployed operational control; 2025–August 2026; assessed 2026-08-27.

Anthropic provides model artifacts and responds to feedback; DoW and cloud providers independently gate operational deployment. Existing deployed models are outside Anthropic technical alteration or shutdown. Consequential functions are divided across institutions, satisfying shared/constrained control without attributing a real-time veto.

Supporting evidence: court-model-provision court-update-gate . Counterevidence: contractual-control court-static-deployment

Coding applies only to stated context and date, not a permanent institutional rank.

Published rubric anchors

little-control: No demonstrated practical control over the specified consequential operation, with affirmative contrary evidence.
shared-constrained: Consequential controls divided among actor, host, customer or enforceable technical constraints.
substantial: Actor demonstrably retains major development, update or access controls in this environment.
dominant-lifecycle: Actor demonstrably controls development, deployment, updates and access across the specified lifecycle without a consequential independent controller.

Unresolved when necessary evidence is missing or adjacent anchors cannot be distinguished. No numeric conversion. Absence requires affirmative remit or operational evidence, not missing sources.

public-authority: limited

Institutionally authorized power to make decisions binding in the specified context.

Institution × legal/operational context × assessed date. February 2024 stated evaluation and advisory remit; assessed 2024-02-09.

Self-described supplementary evaluation and policy-advice remit supports advisory anchor. It does not code the powers of DSIT or UK government as a whole.

Supporting evidence: aisi-remit . Counterevidence:

Historical institutional remit. Later capacity, legislative changes or government powers require separate evidence. Limited denotes advisory remit here, not limited binding authority.

Published rubric anchors

absent: Affirmative remit excludes binding public decisions in this context.
limited: Advisory or delegated bounded public decisions.
substantial: Binding decisions over a significant but bounded function.
binding-operational: Documented binding decision and ability to carry it into operation in the defined function.

Unresolved when necessary evidence is missing or adjacent anchors cannot be distinguished. No numeric conversion. Absence requires affirmative remit or operational evidence, not missing sources.

information-access: unresolved

Ability to obtain non-public model information independently of provider consent.

Institution × information category × jurisdiction/date. Compulsion of access to non-public frontier checkpoints; assessed 2026-09-12.

A limited voluntary exercise cannot prove absence of all compulsory authority. No jurisdiction-wide classification from this evidence.

Supporting evidence: access-limits . Counterevidence: independent-tests

Coding applies only to stated context and date, not a permanent institutional rank.

Published rubric anchors

absent: Affirmative evidence excludes access in this context.
voluntary-provider-controlled: Access obtained through provider permission or negotiated instrument.
partial-compulsory: Specific compulsory information powers apply to some requested information.
broad-compulsory: Applicable legal powers reach the information needed for this defined task, subject to stated safeguards.

Unresolved when necessary evidence is missing or adjacent anchors cannot be distinguished. No numeric conversion. Absence requires affirmative remit or operational evidence, not missing sources.

Atomic evidence and exact sources

US AISI and UK AISI conducted a joint evaluation before the upgraded Claude 3.5 Sonnet release.

Source: Pre-deployment evaluation of upgraded Claude 3.5 Sonnet · NIST / US AISI and UK AISI
Version: 2025-03-20; retrieved 2026-09-12
Exact locator: Introduction; Overview of the Joint Safety Research & Testing Exercise, paragraphs 1–2
Limit: A completed exercise does not establish continuing access or regulatory authority.

Retrieved bytes SHA-256: eb91f397ed29e9e2684cd9dd518dea0b16fba6fbc5634d37cfc25297c78050b5

The exercise included biological and cyber capabilities; UK biological findings were not published in this summary.

Source: Pre-deployment evaluation of upgraded Claude 3.5 Sonnet · NIST / US AISI and UK AISI
Version: 2025-03-20; retrieved 2026-09-12
Exact locator: Overview, paragraph 2; Biological Capabilities, paragraph 2; Cyber Capabilities
Limit: Domain tags describe the exercise scope, not a finding about its effectiveness.

Retrieved bytes SHA-256: eb91f397ed29e9e2684cd9dd518dea0b16fba6fbc5634d37cfc25297c78050b5

The evaluation had a limited access and testing period.

Source: Claude 3.5 Sonnet joint testing report · US AISI / UK AISI
Version: 2024-11-19; retrieved 2026-09-12
Exact locator: Section 2.1, printed pages 1–2
Limit: Applies to this exercise; does not identify who caused the limits.

Retrieved bytes SHA-256: cee68f384975897e9ae8fd556baa9ebae9919fe08fe1e1abb363cbead7802903

The institutes each ran independent tests and worked together on methodology and interpretation of findings.

Source: Claude 3.5 Sonnet joint testing report · US AISI / UK AISI
Version: 2024-11-19; retrieved 2026-09-12
Exact locator: Section 1, printed page 1
Limit: Independence of tests does not establish durable model access.

Retrieved bytes SHA-256: cee68f384975897e9ae8fd556baa9ebae9919fe08fe1e1abb363cbead7802903

Section 2.2 says October 10; section 1 says October 22 for the model release.

Source: Claude 3.5 Sonnet joint testing report · US AISI / UK AISI
Version: 2024-11-19; retrieved 2026-09-12
Exact locator: Sections 1 and 2.2, printed pages 1–2
Limit: Retain discrepancy; use report publication as upper bound, not an exact evaluation date.

Retrieved bytes SHA-256: cee68f384975897e9ae8fd556baa9ebae9919fe08fe1e1abb363cbead7802903

Anthropic could not technologically enforce contractual usage restrictions and lacked direct visibility into DoW use.

Source: Anthropic v DoW: summary judgment, document 250 · US District Court, Northern District of California
Version: 2026-08-27; retrieved 2026-09-12
Exact locator: Printed page 6
Limit: Specific deployed environment; does not imply no control over future development, contracts or provision.

Byte capture unavailable. HTTP Error 403: Forbidden Published document identity and locator remain recorded.

In its February 2024 approach document, AISI describes itself as a secondary check rather than a regulator.

Source: AI Safety Institute approach to evaluations · DSIT / AI Safety Institute
Version: published-2024-02-09; retrieved 2026-09-12
Exact locator: A note on evaluations, final paragraph
Limit: Historical stated remit; not an assessment of every governmental power or all powers at September 2026.

Retrieved bytes SHA-256: 3cf1fee953c6819e009c82b58e5340b7e67737a824477c3ceced9ca636be981c

The court describes deployed DoW Claude models as static and beyond Anthropic technological access, alteration or shutdown.

Source: Anthropic v DoW: summary judgment, document 250 · US District Court, Northern District of California
Version: 2026-08-27; retrieved 2026-09-12
Exact locator: Printed page 17, Section II.F, first paragraph
Limit: Applies to deployed models described in this litigation, not future model provision or hosted consumer services.

Byte capture unavailable. HTTP Error 403: Forbidden Published document identity and locator remain recorded.

The court records that replacement Claude models undergo third-party cloud-provider and DoW security testing and evaluation before operational approval.

Source: Anthropic v DoW: summary judgment, document 250 · US District Court, Northern District of California
Version: 2026-08-27; retrieved 2026-09-12
Exact locator: Printed page 17, Section II.F, first paragraph
Limit: Identifies a deployment approval gate, not complete interpretability, universal evaluation sufficiency or provider substitutability.

Byte capture unavailable. HTTP Error 403: Forbidden Published document identity and locator remain recorded.

The court records Anthropic providing models to DoW or a primary defense contractor and responding to DoW evaluation feedback and requests.

Source: Anthropic v DoW: summary judgment, document 250 · US District Court, Northern District of California
Version: 2026-08-27; retrieved 2026-09-12
Exact locator: Printed page 17, Section II.F, first paragraph
Limit: Provision is distinct from control over deployed inference; future supply terms and update alternatives are unspecified.

Byte capture unavailable. HTTP Error 403: Forbidden Published document identity and locator remain recorded.

Supporting and conflicting evidence

Interface support: joint-evaluation, evaluation-domains, independent-tests. Counterevidence: release-date-conflict

Analysis uk-sonnet-access-constraint: support independent-tests, access-limits; counterevidence independent-tests.

Substantive review

evidence/joint-evaluation: approved · agent reviewer codex-research-checker · 2026-09-12

NIST explicitly describes the joint US/UK exercise on the upgraded Sonnet. The full report has inconsistent model-release dates; this proposition is not used as an exact testing date. Checked locator: Introduction; Overview of the Joint Safety Research & Testing Exercise, paragraphs 1–2. Source version: 2025-03-20.