# Anthropic's Pilot Sabotage Risk Report

*As practice for potential future Responsible Scaling Policy obligations, we're releasing a* [*report on misalignment risk posed by our deployed models as of Summer 2025*](https://alignment.anthropic.com/2025/sabotage-risk-report/2025_pilot_risk_report.pdf)*. We conclude that there is very low, but not fully negligible, risk of misaligned autonomous actions that substantially contribute to later catastrophic outcomes. We also release two reviews of this report: an* [*internal review*](https://alignment.anthropic.com/2025/sabotage-risk-report/2025_pilot_risk_report_internal_stress_testing_team_review.pdf) *and an* [*independent review*](https://alignment.anthropic.com/2025/sabotage-risk-report/2025_pilot_risk_report_metr_review.pdf) *by* [*METR*](https://metr.org/)*.*

Our [Responsible Scaling Policy](https://www.anthropic.com/news/anthropics-responsible-scaling-policy) has so far come into force primarily to address risks related to high-stakes human misuse. However, it also includes future commitments addressing *misalignment*-related risks that initiate from the model's own behavior. For future models that pass a capability threshold we have not yet reached, it commits us to developing

> *an affirmative case that (1) identifies the most immediate and relevant risks from models pursuing misaligned goals and (2) explains how we have mitigated these risks to acceptable levels. The affirmative case will describe, as relevant, evidence on model capabilities; evidence on AI alignment; mitigations (such as monitoring and other safeguards); and our overall reasoning.*

Affirmative cases of this kind are uncharted territory for the field: While we have published [sketches](https://alignment.anthropic.com/2024/safety-cases/) of arguments we might use, we have never prepared a complete affirmative case of this kind, and are not aware of any examples of such documents from other frontier AI developers.

Today, in the spirit of showing our work, we are releasing a report that is meant to represent roughly such an affirmative case, addressing misalignment risks from *present-day* AI systems and deployments, as an output from a pilot exercise. This exercise was meant to give us early visibility into issues that might arise in preparing such a case when one becomes necessary under our policy, to spot present-day gaps in our safety strategy for model autonomy, and to pilot a process for internal and external review that we could use to validate such a load-bearing case in the future.

The language we use to describe this report differs slightly from the language in the current responsible scaling policy: We focus on *sabotage* as the broad category of misaligned behaviors that (unlike, for example, hallucination) poses distinct emerging risks at high capability levels that can be difficult to respond to without significant preparation. We title the document a *risk report* to emphasize that we are not currently arguing that we have achieved a specific pre-determined level of risk (as might be implied by *affirmative case for safety* or *safety case*), but rather laying out what we see as the existing level of risk.

For this pilot exercise, we aimed to reach a complete and clear (if not highly polished) assessment, focusing on this goal at the expense of speed. As a result, the report captures the risks as they existed in *summer* of this year, focusing primarily on risks involving the behavior of Claude Opus 4, which was our most capable model when we started to draft this report. We provide only more limited discussion of subsequent models.

Our primary takeaways are:

> *When reviewing Claude Opus 4's capabilities, its behavioral traits, and the formal and informal safeguards that are in place to limit its behavior, we conclude that there is a very low, but not completely negligible, risk of misaligned autonomous actions that contribute significantly to later catastrophic outcomes, abbreviated as sabotage risk. We see several sabotage-related threat models with similar but low levels of absolute risk. We are moderately confident that Opus 4 does not have consistent, coherent dangerous goals, and that it does not have the capabilities needed to reliably execute complex sabotage strategies while avoiding detection. These general points provide significant reassurance regarding most salient pathways to sabotage, although we do not find them sufficient on their own, and we accordingly provide a more individualized analysis of the most salient pathways.*

This exercise included multiple rounds of revision in cooperation with both our internal Alignment Stress-Testing team and the independent AI safety and evaluation nonprofit [METR](https://metr.org/). Both parties had access to additional evidence beyond what is presented in the report, and both prepared written reviews reflecting their degree of confidence in the report's conclusions. Both reviews ultimately endorse our assessment of the level of risk, though raise doubts about argumentation and evidence in some places and suggest improvements for future such reports.

We have learned a great deal from both the drafting process and our work with both review teams. This has led us to substantially revise our threat models and supported changes to our alignment-related practices, including changes to model training oriented toward improving the faithfulness and monitorability of model reasoning. This work is nonetheless very much a pilot, and we expect that future safety assessments along these lines will include both additional concrete safety measures and further refined argumentation.

The core report team does not endorse every concern raised in the two reviews, and we believe that there are some disagreements with the reviewing teams that we could have productively resolved with more discussion and more time. We *do*, though, largely agree with the reviews, and see many ways that the report and our safeguards could be improved. We note some of these in an appendix. Given the timeliness of this issue, we find it prudent to release our work as it currently exists rather than delaying to await consensus on potentially thorny empirical and conceptual questions.

You can read the report here: [**Anthropic's Summer 2025 Pilot Sabotage Risk Report**](https://alignment.anthropic.com/2025/sabotage-risk-report/2025_pilot_risk_report.pdf)

You can read the internal review from our Alignment Stress-Testing Team here: [**Alignment Stress-Testing Review**](https://alignment.anthropic.com/2025/sabotage-risk-report/2025_pilot_risk_report_internal_stress_testing_team_review.pdf)

You can read the independent review from METR here: [**METR's Review**](https://alignment.anthropic.com/2025/sabotage-risk-report/2025_pilot_risk_report_metr_review.pdf)