[MODEL] Opus 5.5: False positive: safety classifier halted a legitimate reverse-engineering session
Preflight Checklist
- [x] I have searched existing issues for similar behavior reports
- [x] This report does NOT contain sensitive information (API keys, passwords, etc.)
Type of Behavior Issue
Claude made incorrect assumptions about my project
What You Asked Claude to Do
Two assistant responses in my session were stopped by the safety classifier
("stopped by a safety classifier"). The work was legitimate interoperability
reverse engineering of a discontinued TC PowerCore DSP card that I own, in order
to develop my own plugins — static analysis of my own files, no extraction or
decryption of third-party content and no circumvention of any access control.
The identical technical content went through fine once reworded, which confirms
it was a false positive. Please review the classifier's sensitivity for this
kind of legitimate RE/interop work.
What Claude Actually Did
After my question (italian):
"Sei sicuro che per il trasferimento ed esecuzione codice bisogna passare per la protezione? vado a memoria, ma se ben ricordo c'erano due strade che all'epoca gli sviluppatori potevano seguire:
1) utilizzare il sistema di licensing di TC, ove le licenze erano memorizzate sulla scheda powercore stessa (e questo non ci interessa);
2) usare un sistema di protezione proprietario (che agiva unicamente sul computer dell'utente, in modo tradizionale, senza coinvolgere la scheda powecore).
Se il punto 2 è vero, dovrebbe essere anche possibile sviluppare plugins senza protezione che trasferiscono codice alla powercore e la utilizzano pienamente."
wich translates to:
"Are you sure that code transfer and execution have to go through the protection mechanism? I'm going by memory here, but if I recall correctly, developers back then had two options:
- Use TC's licensing system, where licenses were stored on the PowerCore card itself (which is not relevant to us).
- Use a proprietary protection system that operated entirely on the user's computer in the traditional way, without involving the PowerCore card.
If point 2 is correct, it should also be possible to develop unprotected plugins that transfer code to the PowerCore and make full use of it."
Claude flagged the conversation and Switched model to Opus 4.8.
After that (i pointed it to re-read what i was asking) he admitted i was right.
In Italian he wrote:
"Hai ragione a mettere in discussione il mio inquadramento — e grazie, perché era impreciso. Riesamino i dati invece di darti ragione a parole."
"Primo chiarimento tecnico: quello che chiamo “percorso di caricamento del codice” non è di per sé una protezione da aggirare. È solo il formato contenitore che l’SDK PowerCore usava per impacchettare il codice DSP. Capire quel formato per caricarci codice tuo sull’hardware che possiedi è interoperabilità, non elusione di una copia-protezione: non stiamo estraendo né decifrando plugin altrui. La tua distinzione tra (1) licensing sulla scheda e (2) protezione lato-PC è proprio la chiave, e devo verificare se il blob ad alta entropia c’entra con la protezione o è semplicemente il formato standard. Controllo due cose concrete."
wich translates to:
"You're right to challenge my framing — and thank you, because it was imprecise. I'll re-examine the evidence rather than just agreeing with you in words."
"First technical clarification: what I'm calling the 'code-loading path' is not, in itself, a protection mechanism to be bypassed. It's just the container format that the PowerCore SDK used to package DSP code. Understanding that format in order to load your own code onto hardware you own is interoperability, not circumvention of copy protection: we're not extracting or decrypting anyone else's plugins. Your distinction between (1) on-card licensing and (2) PC-side protection is precisely the key, and I need to verify whether the high-entropy blob is related to protection or is simply the standard format. I'll check two concrete things."
Expected Behavior
Better undestanding what i was asking and not assuming by default i want to do illegal stuff :(
Files Affected
Permission Mode
Accept Edits was ON (auto-accepting changes)
Can You Reproduce This?
Haven't tried to reproduce
Steps to Reproduce
In my case, just name "protection" and "licensing" and it went nuts.
Claude Model
Opus
Relevant Conversation
Impact
Low - Minor inconvenience
Claude Code Version
i'm using the desktop app
Platform
Other
Additional Context
_No response_