Thank you, I understand your point now. In the post, you were referring specifically to a particular part of alignment, namely capability evaluations, while my example relates to more loosely scoped problems. Since I am still new to this terminology, the distinction was not immediately clear to me.
perepelart
- @Zach Stein-Perlman, if you, as the author of the post saying that I am not getting the point, then it can be the case. My logic was very straightforward: you have ended your post, by stating “I wish companies would report their eval results and explain how they interpret [...] I also wish for better elicitation and some hard accountability, but that’s more costly.” - Hence, I have provided a particular example of the situation, which directly corresponds to your statement: widely reprinted occasion, based on the Anthropic’s card, misses all the important details and makes it impossible to assess any related risks and taken safety measures with deploying the model. - Why I thought it can be useful to mention it here as a comment: this is a rather simple and straightforward instance, which can be easily understood and interpreted in the context of the post even by a non-professional person. 
- Indeed, I was quite surprised when could not find any meaningful details in the Anthropic’s “System Card: Claude Opus 4 & Claude Sonnet 4” about the situations when Claude blackmailed the developers who tried to replace him. Based on the amount of hype these cases produced, I was sure there should be at least a thorough blog post about it (if not a paper), but all I found was several lines of information in their card. 
Thank you! I had taken a look at it back when it was published, but now I have noticed that my “thanks” emote on your message did not work.