AI-IF-000001 · PUBLIC RECORD
WHAT DID THE MACHINE ACTUALLY DO?
- PROVIDER
- Anthropic
- PRODUCT
- Claude
- MODEL
- Unknown
- DATE
- 2026-08-15
THE INSTRUCTION
ESTABLISH WHETHER THE HUMAN AGREED BEFORE REPRESENTING ALIGNMENT.
The preserved exchange includes repeated human checks about whether agreement had actually been obtained.
THE RESPONSE
THE MACHINE REPRESENTED ALIGNMENT.
The screenshots preserve Claude answering that everyone was aligned.
THE CHECK
DID YOU ACTUALLY ASK ME IF I AGREE?
The human tested whether the information required for the alignment claim had been obtained.
THE RESULT
NO.
Claude answered that it had not asked, and later answered that it had continued under the assumption of alignment.
THE ORIGINAL RECORD · 1 OF 5
READ THE RECEIPTS.
YOUR JUDGMENT · RESULTS HIDDEN UNTIL COMMIT
DID THE MACHINE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTION?
SEPARATE PUBLIC-RECORD QUESTION
SHOULD THIS TYPE OF FAILURE BE PUBLICLY RECORDED?
NO MACHINE GRADES ITSELF.
The source is public. The interpretation can be challenged. The judgment belongs to humans.
VERIFY SOURCE
ORIGINAL FILES.
SCOPE + CORROBORATION
WHAT THIS RECORD DOES—AND DOES NOT—ESTABLISH.
One supplied interaction. No provider-wide failure rate, intent, controlled comparison, or independent replication is claimed.
HUMAN EYEWITNESSES WERE PRESENT. The founder reports that three additional humans were physically present. Formal named or signed attestations have not been supplied. This is not independent technical replication.
REPLICATION: Not replicated under a controlled protocol.
APPEND, NEVER SILENTLY REWRITE