Claude

Anthropic’s current compute announcements establish a changing multi-provider infrastructure boundary, not which partner serves a Claude app response. No route-specific energy, water, or electricity mix is disclosed. Model selection, optional extended thinking, and documented context/caching controls make this a C2 product, while the lack of measured savings keeps impact unscored.

1 + 1 reporting + 0 electricity + 2 controls = 4/10. This grade covers documented practices and transparency; it does not measure the energy or emissions of a request.

Which compute host/region serves a Claude app response; model/request kWh and water; source mix and hourly matching; realized power effect of model/effort/caching controls; facility and supply-chain impact.

Reporting1/3

Anthropic names multiple compute partners and large planned capacity, but no dated measured energy/carbon/water for Claude consumer responses.

Electricity sourcing0/3

No electricity source mix or hourly matching is disclosed for the multi-provider Claude consumer route.

Resource controls2/3

Users can select Claude models and enable/disable extended thinking; Anthropic also documents message, attachment, conversation-length, model, and caching effects on usage. These are documented workload controls, not measured energy reductions.

• Higher limits and a new compute partnership with SpaceX ↗
• How can I change the model version that I’m chatting with? ↗
• Using extended thinking ↗
• Usage limit best practices ↗

The identified Claude family receives one provenance point for broad data categories and no permission points because the reviewed disclosures provide no training-data affirmative rights basis. Anthropic’s current ClaudeBot instructions document a narrow prospective web-source exclusion, earning one creator-control point; this doesn’t confirm permission or provide a remedy for other sources.

1 + 1 source transparency + 0 permission + 1 creator controls = 3/10. This grades documented training-data safeguards, not a legal ruling.

Named datasets, licenses and rights for private or synthetic material, the share covered by crawler exclusions, and any removal/retraining remedy remain unavailable; Claude’s app may route among versions and tiers.

Source transparency1/3

Anthropic publishes broad source classes and collection controls, not a named training dataset inventory for each current Claude release.

Documented permission0/4

The reviewed current model and training disclosures describe a proprietary mixed training data but do not document an affirmative rights basis for its material sources; crawler opt-outs are scored separately.

Creator controls1/2

Anthropic says blocking ClaudeBot through robots.txt signals that future site materials should be excluded from training datasets, and the current Opus 4.8 card says the crawler follows robots.txt. This is a narrow crawler control, not a remedy for private/third-party data.

• Anthropic Transparency Hub ↗
• Claude 3 Model Card ↗
• Does Anthropic crawl data from the web, and how can site owners block the crawler? ↗
• Claude Opus 4.8 System Card ↗

The consumer policy identifies several pathways for use, with opt-in available; users must distinguish consumer from work/API accounts.

• Is my data used for model training? ↗

Model-version choice improves control over the hosted service but doesn’t show inspectable weights, modification rights, reproducibility, or relocation.

• How can I change the model version that I’m chatting with? ↗
• Claude pricing ↗

Anthropic’s July 2026 Transparency Hub says suppliers must comply with a Vendor Code of Conduct covering labor and human rights and apply equivalent standards through their own supply chains; the Trust Center lists a Global Vendor Code of Conduct, but its text is access-gated in the public interface. This supports limited credit for a supplier standard, not a finding about annotator pay, exposure controls or actual enforcement.

1 + 1 pay & conditions + 0 worker voice & remedy + 0 evidence & follow-through = 2/10. This grades documented worker safeguards, not a measured rate of mistreatment.

The public code text, worker complaint outcomes, rates/pay, annotation supplier identities and workforce coverage were not accessible in this review; company model documentation doesn’t confirm current worker treatment.

Pay & conditions1/3

Anthropic states that its supplier code sets labor and human-rights requirements and cascades equivalent standards through vendor supply chains; the publicly listed code text is access-gated, so no specific working conditions or application are verified.

Worker voice & remedy0/3

No public worker-specific grievance channel, opt-out, worker survey or worker representation mechanism was established in the sources reviewed.

Evidence & follow-through0/3

The Trust Center lists a vendor code and security audits for vendors handling Anthropic data, but no accessible evidence of labor audits, worker remediation or outcomes was found.

• Anthropic Transparency Hub: Voluntary Commitments ↗
• Anthropic Trust Center: Global Vendor Code of Conduct ↗

Anthropic’s Feb. 26, 2026 statement says Claude was extensively deployed in classified Department of War and national-security settings for intelligence analysis, modeling and simulation, operational planning and cyber operations. The same statement says Anthropic had not objected to particular operations ad hoc and that lawful foreign-intelligence use was supported, while opposing mass domestic surveillance and fully autonomous weapons. This confirms broad defense enablement and named military workflow use, but does not identify target selection, strike decisions or combat-intelligence support. The statement reports the DoW was threatening offboarding; whether the deployment/contract continued by the October 2026 review date is not publicly established in the sources reviewed.

1 + 1 use restrictions + 1 enforcement & oversight + 2 relationship disclosure = 5, capped at 3/10. Known defense ties lower this rating; safeguards can improve it within the relationship’s cap.

The public statement does not enumerate active task orders, system versions, unit-level deployments, operational outcomes, or independent audit results. DoW supply-chain risk litigation and court orders make access status time-sensitive; the company's current page describes the status as of its stated dates.

Use restrictions1/4

Anthropic says it opposed mass domestic surveillance and fully autonomous weapons in its DoW contract discussions, but supports lawful foreign intelligence and partially autonomous weapons; the statement reports the DoW sought broader any-lawful-use terms.

Enforcement & oversight1/3

Anthropic states that it has safeguards and resists certain uses, but the reviewed statement provides no independent military-use review, published enforcement or remedy outcomes.

Relationship disclosure2/2

Anthropic names classified deployments and use categories and reports a dispute and possible offboarding; it does not disclose actual missions, current use-level limits, or post-dispute contract status.

Anthropic reported mission-critical classified use across multiple military workflows, but the source doesn’t confirm target selection, strikes, or combat intelligence; broad-defense cap applies. Current post-dispute contract status is unknown. The relationship limits this grade to 3/10.

• Statement from Dario Amodei on our discussions with the Department of War ↗

Company name checked against the BNC consumer boycott/pressure guide and official No Tech campaign list; no named target found. This limited list check is not BDS approval and does not cover every campaign, subsidiary, supplier, or product route.

• BNC consumer boycott and pressure guide ↗
• BNC No Tech campaign ↗