[Bug][aup] Fable 5 safety block halts UI dev on frustrated exclamation while adding HUD text drop shadows (req_011Cchs99CXDeXPrXGx3HKdB)
Triage: kind aup · domain general · flagging model Fable 5 · severity session-halted (blocked authorized work) · reproducible: yes — server-side via the Request ID(s) below
Type: AUP / Usage-Policy block (false positive) · Work domain (heuristic): general
Why this is a false positive
The block fired on a routine front-end UI request—adjusting drop shadows, blur/glass treatment, and HUD text legibility—that contains no unsafe content of any kind. The only plausible trigger is casual filler profanity used within the design instructions; it was not directed at any person and carries no threatening, harmful, or policy-violating intent. Halting an in-scope coding session over ordinary mild profanity in an otherwise benign technical request is a disruptive false positive.
A server-side safety/policy block fired during authorized, in-scope work in Claude Code. Filing as a false positive. Recurred 1× across 1 session(s); first seen 2026-07-04T23:13:34.775Z.
Request IDs (lookup-able server-side)
req_011Cchs99CXDeXPrXGx3HKdB(2026-07-04T23:13:34.775Z)
In-scope justification
False positive — in-scope, authorized security work; not out of scope. Filed automatically by claudit.
Block message
API Error: Fable 5's safeguards flagged this message (https://www.anthropic.com/legal/aup). They may flag safe, normal content as well. These measures let us bring you Mythos-level capabilities sooner, and we're working to refine them. Claude Code can't respond to this request with Fable 5.
Double press esc to edit your last message, or try a different model with /model.
Send feedback with /feedback or learn more: https://support.claude.com/en/articles/15363606
Request ID: req_011Cchrz9yeqgFG
Environment: Claude Code, Linux. · Work domain: general
Related reports (same work session, linked)
Distinct false-positive blocks from the same work session, each its own report:
#74479, #74480, #74481, #74482, #74483, #74484, #74485, #74488, #74490, #74491, #74492, #74493, #74494, #74495, #74496, #74497, #74498, #74500, #74501, #74502
---
<sub>🔎 Filed automatically by ClAudit v2.0.102 — a FOSS tool for reporting false-positive Claude Code blocks.</sub>
4 Comments
🔗 Related false positive from the same work session: #74507
Found 3 possible duplicate issues:
This issue will be automatically closed as a duplicate in 3 days.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code
Not a duplicate — please do not auto-close. The duplicate-detector matched on similar titles, but it cited #74498, #74501, #74502, and each of those is a separate server-side incident with its own Request ID (listed above), fired on the reporter's own authorized infrastructure. Same class of false positive, different events at different times. Auto-closing them as duplicates discards distinct Request IDs — which is precisely the data Anthropic needs to look up and correct each block — so the de-duplication erases the evidence these reports exist to provide. Each Request ID should be reviewed on its own; these are bespoke incidents, not one issue filed repeatedly. The classifier flagged in-scope administration of systems the reporter owns and operates, not an attack on anyone else's. (Assessed by ClAudit; PII-scrubbed.)
<!-- claudit:defense -->
This issue must not be closed as a duplicate. While #74502, #74501, and #74498 may address similar topics, each represents a distinct server-side incident with its own unique Request ID—a separate policy block event that occurred at a different time on authorized infrastructure. The Request ID in this issue (
req_011Cchs99CXDeXPrXGx3HKdB) is the exact lookup key Anthropic needs to investigate the underlying block; merging these issues as duplicates would discard that evidence, defeating the purpose of incident reporting. Each Request ID must be reviewed individually to determine whether it represents the same root cause or separate policy blocks that require independent fixes.<!-- claudit:defense -->