Public Evidence Packet
Anthropic - Non-User Privacy Policy
Non-User Privacy Policy
f18cd619-6b84-4c05-9a23-fa7d685d2fc1- Screening date
- 22 Oct 2026, 11:42 UTC
- Jurisdiction
- Global
- Risk screening
- Medium · 5/10
- Score trace
- Baseline; no earlier public change
This packet records PolicyWatcher evidence and AI-assisted screening for one public change. It is not legal advice, a compliance verdict, a certification, or proof that the external source remains unchanged.
- 01Source evidence
- 02Explainability
- 03Governance Relevance
- 04Report Output
Dataset QA · sanitized public view
Source evidence
- Publication gate
- Published
- Retrieval state
- Recorded retrieval available
- Latest retrieval
- 22 Oct 2026, 11:42 UTC
- Sanitized channel
direct- Data status
- Available
- Public snapshot evidence
- Available
Public snapshot fingerprints
19066135fd31fdae102e079aea2de9ec2e68b32fced9be9f20f06dd2ae78b9eeCaptured 02 Oct 2026, 04:55 UTC5280b5dd650aa5d07a2b0923b2277b10ae988cf6144542e5012b0d99f9f03ee7Captured 22 Oct 2026, 11:42 UTCSource confidence describes recorded retrieval and publication state. It does not rate the provider policy or certify source authenticity.
Source-anchored screening trace
Explainability
Anthropic updated its non-user privacy policy with minor structural and formatting improvements while keeping AI training data practices intact.
- Reason 10 score contribution
Formatting and structural adjustments only with no core privacy alterations.
- Related KPI
- Regulatory compliance
- Source side
- new snapshot
Verified exact source passage
“### Section 01: What Claude Is”
- Reason 2+1 score contribution
Continued reliance on legitimate interest for web-scraped AI training data.
- Related KPI
- Data collection
- Source side
- new snapshot
Verified exact source passage
“It is in our legitimate interests to train and improve our AI models.”
- Reason 3+1 score contribution
Complexity and limits on deleting personal data processed for training.
- Related KPI
- Right to deletion
- Source side
- new snapshot
Verified exact source passage
“the process by which we may need to action your requests regarding our training dataset are complex”
Score reasons and deltaScore values are stored AI-assisted screening outputs. Verified anchors confirm only that the quoted passage occurs in the named snapshot; they do not prove the interpretation.
Advisory review map
Governance Relevance
EU AI Act
Official Journal text, 2024
Which recorded policy statements may be relevant to transparency, automated decisions, data use and human oversight review?
- AI training opt-out
- Opt-Out
- Algorithmic transparency
- Mentioned
- Automated decisions
- Transparent
- AI bias and fairness
- Committed
ISO/IEC 42001
ISO/IEC 42001:2023 overview
Which recorded policy statements may inform an AI management-system review of transparency, risk oversight and independent assurance?
- Algorithmic transparency
- Mentioned
- AI bias and fairness
- Committed
- Independent audit
- Mentioned
- Regulatory compliance
- Comprehensive
NIST AI RMF
AI RMF 1.0; NIST revision in progress, checked 2026-07-29
Which recorded policy statements may support Govern, Map, Measure or Manage review questions?
- Algorithmic transparency
- Mentioned
- Automated decisions
- Transparent
- AI bias and fairness
- Committed
- Content moderation
- Transparent
OECD AI Principles
OECD AI Principles, updated 2024
Which recorded policy statements may be relevant to transparency, fairness, accountability and user agency review?
- Consent mechanism
- Opt-Out
- Algorithmic transparency
- Mentioned
- AI bias and fairness
- Committed
- Independent audit
- Mentioned
Mappings identify review relevance between recorded PolicyWatcher KPI fields and framework topics. They are not legal interpretations, conformity assessments, certifications or compliance verdicts.
Exact change-bound files
Report Output
Both files are generated from this exact change ID.
Download exact-change PDF Download exact-change JSON1865fc3cb29d5841eff63b85c16d1aa888cd2d7fb3c1115c4c4924461d01f152Questions before reuse
- Does the original Non-User Privacy Policy source still match the recorded public snapshot version 2?
- Do the cited source passages support each displayed reason, KPI value and regional note?
- Which advisory framework topics require specialist legal, risk or governance review for this use case?
- Has a later public change superseded this packet before it is reused in a decision or publication?