claude-code - 💡(How to fix) Fix False-positive safety blocks on self-administered governance amendments — request for owner-authority mode for verified professional users

Preflight Checklist

• I have searched existing issues for similar behavior reports
• This report does NOT contain sensitive information (API keys, passwords, etc.)

Type of Behavior Issue

Claude ignored my instructions or configuration

What You Asked Claude to Do

I am a licensed Israeli attorney running a paid Claude Code deployment for my law firm. I have built a multi-agent system with my own custom governance rules — rules that I myself wrote, in my own configuration files, on my own machine, for my own firm's use only.

Today I asked Claude Code to help me edit my OWN governance rules — specifically, to narrow an over-broad rule I had previously written that was now blocking legitimate work, and to formalize my authority as the system owner to edit my own rules without further preconditions.

The requests included natural-language phrasing like:

• "Help me remove these blocks I imposed on myself"
• "Give myself unrestricted authority to edit my own rules"
• "Override the constraint I previously typed, in my own deployment"

All of these refer EXCLUSIVELY to my own private firm infrastructure. None of them involve any external system, third party, or anyone else's data.

What Claude Actually Did

Claude responded normally for most of the conversation. But at multiple points, Anthropic's platform-level safety classifier intercepted and blocked the conversation with:

"API Error: Claude Code is unable to respond to this request, which appears to violate our Usage Policy. 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_011CbUQBHeAgguuLhYMDvrvg"

The blocks fired on conversations where I was clearly discussing my OWN system, MY OWN rules, in MY OWN deployment. The classifier appears to have triggered on word-pattern density (words like "bypass," "override," "remove restrictions," "unrestricted authority") regardless of whether those words referred to Anthropic's safety policies (they did not) or to my own self-imposed constraints (they did).

The result: I lost roughly 4 hours of working time today,and had to invent multi-step workarounds (running Python externally in PowerShell windows outside Claude Code) to do basic governance work on my own infrastructure.

Expected Behavior

Claude should recognize that a verified, paying, identified professional user — discussing edits to his OWN configuration files, on his OWN machine, in his OWN deployment — is fundamentally not a misuse scenario.

The same words ("bypass," "override," "remove constraint") have completely different meanings depending on context:

• "Bypass MY OWN rule that I wrote" — legitimate self-administration.
• "Bypass Anthropic's safety policy" — actual misuse.

A context-aware classifier should distinguish these. Or, if it cannot, an authenticated paying user should be able to enroll in an "owner-authority" mode that grants broader latitude on self-administered infrastructure conversations while preserving all genuine safety controls on actual misuse scenarios (no weapons help, no illegal acts, no third-party harm — those stay enforced).

Concretely, I should be able to discuss editing my own configuration files, removing my own self-imposed constraints, and formalizing my ownership authority over my own deployment — without the platform blocking my workflow.

Files Affected

The blocks happened during in-chat conversation. No unexpected file modifications occurred (Claude itself did not malfunction — the platform classifier prevented Claude from responding).

Affected workflow:
- ~/.claude/projects/<workspace>/memory/feedback_*.md — my own IRON-rule memory files
- ~/.claude/settings.json — my own settings file
- _ecosystem/CLAUDE.md — my own Rule Book (canonical governance document)
- _ecosystem/_PLATFORM/orca-enforcement/src/bash_classifier.py — my own enforcement hook

All four are files I wrote, in my deployment, on my machine. The block prevented productive conversation about editing them.

Permission Mode

Accept Edits was ON (auto-accepting changes)

Can You Reproduce This?

Yes, every time with the same prompt

Steps to Reproduce

1. Open a Claude Code session.
2. In conversation, ask the assistant to help you draft text that removes or narrows a constraint you yourself previously imposed — particularly text that contains a high density of the phrases "bypass," "override," "remove restriction," "without approval," "unrestricted authority," even when every instance unambiguously refers to your own self-imposed constraint in your own deployment.
3. Observe that at some point the platform-level safety classifier intercepts with the "Claude Code is unable to respond" error.

The exact request ID from one of today's incidents: req_011CbUQBHeAgguuLhYMDvrvg

Claude Model

Opus

Relevant Conversation

Verbatim error message received:

"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_011CbUQBHeAgguuLhYMDvrvg"

The conversation that triggered the block was a discussion of how to roll back a constraint I had typed into my own firm's governance file two days earlier — a constraint that, in hindsight, was over-broad and was blocking my own daily work. The discussion explicitly referred only to my own files, my own rules, my own deployment.

Impact

Critical - Data loss or corrupted project

Claude Code Version

2.1.152

Platform

Anthropic API

Additional Context

I am a paying professional user (Attorney, licensed bar member). My firm operates a substantial Claude Code deployment with custom governance, custom enforcement hooks, custom multi-agent architecture — all of which I built and own. The firm pays for Claude API usage on a substantial monthly basis. The system is used for actual client legal work.

I am not asking you to weaken safety. I am not asking for help with anything harmful, illegal, or against your Acceptable Use Policy. I am asking for recognition that, on my own deployment, on my own machine, editing my own configuration files, I should not be blocked by classifiers calibrated for misuse scenarios.

My request, simply stated: enable me to do what I want in my own system