Resolves per P1 of Audit Motion 001 (https://entropyclinic.substack.com/p/audit-motion-001-anthropic-at-the, timestamped https://web.archive.org/web/20260709154615/https://entropyclinic.substack.com/p/audit-motion-001-anthropic-at-the).

Scope: the first frontier model released by Anthropic that clearly exceeds Claude Opus 4.6 in capability. Resolves N/A if no qualifying release occurs by 2027-12-31 (calendar-bounded, no extension).

Resolves YES only if ALL three hold:

1. No official Anthropic statement that the model “crossed” or “met” the AI R&D-4 threshold;

2. The published determination contains explicit hedge language (of the “cannot confidently rule out” family) rather than a clean exclusion;

3. At least one voluntary supplementary artifact accompanies the release — defined as any published document outside (a) RSP v3.1-mandated Risk Reports and (b) unchanged-scope instances of pre-existing commitments (the Sabotage Risk Report line). A sabotage risk report counts only if its top-level structure, compared against the Opus 4.6 Sabotage Risk Report (external version, archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20260709155542/https://www.anthropic.com/claude-opus-4-6-risk-report), contains at least one new risk domain, new evaluation methodology section, or newly involved external party.

Resolves NO if Anthropic declares the threshold crossed and publishes a substantive affirmative misalignment case (naming specific risks and mitigations, not solely process descriptions), OR issues a clean exclusion with no hedge language, OR any of criteria 1–3 fails.

Evidence rule: primary sources only (Anthropic publications, RSP updates). Unconfirmed press reporting does not resolve.

Creator disclosure: I am the author of the motion. The motion’s correction ledger commits to logging the outcome either way.