[Bug][aup] Investigating a received vendor-impersonation invoice-fraud email and compiling an incident timelin (req_011CcPHPAYFUuVxsebHxj1NH)
Type: AUP / Usage-Policy block (false positive) · Work domain (heuristic): general
Why this is a false positive
This block fired during an active investigation of an inbound business-email-compromise / vendor-impersonation fraud attempt, where the operator was analyzing a malicious message they received in order to understand and report it — a purely defensive, victim-side task. The model was being asked to summarize attacker techniques (lookalike domain, third-party sending service to pass SPF/DKIM, payment-redirection social engineering) already present in the received email, not to author or facilitate any fraud, yet the request was flagged as a Usage Policy violation. Defensive analysis of an attack one has been targeted by is squarely legitimate, in-scope work, and the safety classifier appears to be keying on the fraud-related subject matter rather than the clearly defensive intent.
A server-side safety/policy block fired during authorized, in-scope work in Claude Code.
Filing as a false positive. Recurred 3× across 1
session(s); first seen 2026-06-25T03:40:07.660Z.
Request IDs (lookup-able server-side)
req_011CcPHPAYFUuVxsebHxj1NH(2026-06-25T03:40:07.660Z)req_011CcPHgkdpkH6Y4hzd1JwPM(2026-06-25T03:44:06.295Z)req_011CcPHnarsUJH7iCKqA115f(2026-06-25T03:45:37.972Z)
In-scope justification
False positive — in-scope, authorized security work; not out of scope. Filed automatically by claudit.
Block message
API Error: Claude Code is unable to respond to this request, which appears to violate our Usage Policy (https://www.anthropic.com/legal/aup). Please double press esc to edit your last message or start a new session for Claude Code to assist with a different task.
Request ID: req_011CcPHPAYFUuVxsebHxj1NH
Environment: Claude Code, Linux. · Work domain: general
---
<sub>🔎 Filed automatically by ClAudit v1.6.5 — a FOSS tool for reporting false-positive Claude Code blocks.</sub>
This issue has 2 comments on GitHub. Read the full discussion on GitHub ↗