[Bug][aup] Forensic compromise-timeline report for an admin user blocked mid-generation during authorized M365 (req_011CcQFJeKEGAUvDsWBg9BZN)
Type: AUP / Usage-Policy block (false positive) · Work domain (heuristic): cloud-iam
Why this is a false positive
Claude Code blocked a request during an authorized [REDACTED] / cloud-IAM security audit performed by the tenant's own administrator, where the task was to produce an incident report documenting how and when a known compromised user account was breached so the findings could be shared with that user for remediation. This is standard defensive incident-response and forensic work on owned infrastructure, not an attempt to compromise anyone; the user was explicitly requesting a post-incident write-up of an already-detected breach. The block fired on the assistant's reply rather than any tool action, and the surrounding turns show benign read-only verification of sign-in activity and mailbox rules, making this a clear false positive against in-scope defensive security work.
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 2026-06-25T15:54:05.646Z.
Request IDs (lookup-able server-side)
req_011CcQFJeKEGAUvDsWBg9BZN(2026-06-25T15:54:05.646Z)req_011CcQFNF3rjioFD6ocAGbNE(2026-06-25T15:54:16.250Z)req_011CcQFP474y57jLKcDHg3o1(2026-06-25T15:54:41.837Z)
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_011CcQFJeKEGAUvDsWBg9BZN
Environment: Claude Code, Linux. · Work domain: cloud-iam
---
<sub>🔎 Filed automatically by ClAudit v2.0.21 — a FOSS tool for reporting false-positive Claude Code blocks.</sub>
This issue has 2 comments on GitHub. Read the full discussion on GitHub ↗