S4 — Why Our Recs

This segment connects the evidence base and Anthropic’s governance posture to the concrete recommendations made in the client brief and the Foreseeable Misuse pack. It is the bridge between sources and scenarios.

What this page does

Summarises the rationale behind the GREEN / AMBER recommendations.
Explains why certain clauses and disclaimers are preferred.
Links to the Foreseeable Misuse and Penumbral packs for worked examples.

1. Reasoning patterns behind this pack

This section pulls together the main reasoning patterns that run through the scenarios, acceptance tables, and tools in this pack. Naming them explicitly makes it easier for counsel to see how individual recommendations fit into a stable posture.

Governance-first. Start from Anthropic’s internal governance commitments (RSP v2.2, ASL tiers, evaluations) and ask what they imply for a given deployment, rather than working backwards from preferred deal terms.
Shared responsibility across the chain. Treat the model provider, integrator, and end users as sharing duties, rather than assuming that one party can absorb all risk.
Evidence-backed prudence. Where the risk profile is uncertain, default toward cautious positions that can be justified by evaluation evidence and real-world experience, then revisit as the evidence base grows.
Clarity for end users. Favour approaches that make it easy for end users to understand what the system is (and is not) doing, and what role their own judgment should play.

Later pages apply these patterns in specific contexts (for example, professional advice, workflow automation, or privacy-sensitive processing). S4’s role is to make the underlying logic visible.

2. From scenarios to commitments

The Foreseeable Misuse and Penumbral packs contain worked scenarios: concrete fact patterns that raise product liability, misuse, and privacy questions. This pack uses those scenarios to test what Anthropic’s governance posture and evidence base imply for real deals.

The move from scenario to commitment usually follows a consistent path:

Describe the use case clearly. Who is using the system, for what purpose, and with what level of autonomy?
Map the risk and duty landscape. Which regimes and duties are in play (safety, consumer protection, privacy, sectoral rules), and who sits where in the chain of actors?
Check against governance and evidence. Which ASL tier and evaluation work are relevant, and what do they say about plausible failure modes and mitigations?
Propose a position. Translate that analysis into a GREEN/AMBER position, with concrete safeguards, disclaimers, or customer responsibilities where needed.

The acceptance table in S6 and the scenario write-ups in the FM and Penumbral bundles are the primary places where these commitments are recorded. S4’s role is to keep the link between “how we reasoned” and “what we are prepared to stand behind” explicit.

Illustrative path: FM1 professional-advice reliance

To make this bridge concrete, consider a simplified version of the FM1 scenario: an enterprise wants to deploy Claude inside a drafting assistant for junior professionals in a regulated field. The concern is not that Claude replaces human judgment outright, but that users might quietly treat model outputs as if they were definitive advice.

In that setting, counsel is not deciding in a vacuum. They have in front of them:

Anthropic's public-facing commitments (for example, high-level safety posture and transparency about system limits).
Customer- and end-user-facing terms, usage policies, and disclaimers that describe what Claude is and is not intended to be used for.
Internal evaluations and foreseeable misuse analysis that identify how people actually tend to interact with systems like this.

The job of S4 is to show how those ingredients translate into a practical posture. In our FM1 example, that may look like: recommending clear on-screen messaging that reinforces the need for human review, insisting on customer-side training for professionals who will use the tool, and treating the deployment as acceptable only so long as those safeguards remain in place. The precise posture is recorded in the acceptance tables; S4 captures the story you would tell about how we got there.

This illustrative path is not a final opinion on any real deployment. It is a worked example that demonstrates how the evidence base, foreseeable misuse analysis, and concrete design choices come together to support a GREEN or AMBER recommendation in practice.