{"resourceId":"vermont-jitoc-memo-anthropic-evaluation-agreement-20260924","versions":[{"version":"external-651a5f68508ec8d2aec4922d3c727e06daf93934b14e0a1e982a3eab73979413","resource":{"id":"vermont-jitoc-memo-anthropic-evaluation-agreement-20260924","title":"Vermont oversight leaders' memo to ADS: the Anthropic evaluation agreement is silent on source-code retention and training, and may have skipped required contract approvals","organization":"Vermont General Assembly (Sen. Rob Plunkett, Rep. Laura Sibilia, Rep. Monique Priestley) to the Agency of Digital Services","sector":"State legislative IT oversight / AI cybersecurity tool contracting","geography":"Vermont statewide","publishedAt":"2026-09-24 (memo date; posted with Sep 30 JITOC materials)","publicationDate":"2026-09-24","eventDate":"2026-09-30","sourceName":"Vermont General Assembly (JITOC)","sourceLabel":"Memo to Secretary Denise Reilly-Hughes: Agreement between Anthropic and the State of Vermont, with attached Evaluation Agreement - Claude Security (Government)","sourceUrl":"https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2026/Workgroups/JITOC/Oversight/W~Robert%20Plunkett~Letter%20to%20ADS;%20Anthropic%20Evaluation%20Agreement~9-30-2026.pdf","evidenceClass":"government-evaluation","outcomeClass":"cautionary","topics":["governance-procurement","data-security","developers-agents"],"finding":"The Sep 24 memo from JITOC chair Sen. Plunkett and Reps. Sibilia and Priestley asks ADS for written answers on three issues: protection of state source code, the contracting process, and whether a NIST impact and risk assessment was done before the trial. It says Claude tools run in a customer environment but send code to an externally hosted model, so local operation does not by itself keep code inside state systems, and that the agreement shown to legislators has no provisions on retention, use, human access, model training or deletion of state source code. It cites Bulletin 3.5 requirements (sole-source justification approved by the CTO; Secretary of Administration and Attorney General review of zero-dollar contracts) and asks ten questions plus the executed agreement, approvals, pre-deployment assessment, and which hosting option (Anthropic, AWS, Microsoft Foundry or Google Cloud) Vermont used. The attached unsigned form provides $100,000 in credits for six months, limits use to defensive cybersecurity, provides services 'as is', labels Claude Security a beta service, and caps each party's liability at the greater of $1,000 or fees paid.","sledRelevance":"This is the document our Oct 4 edition listed as not located. It turns the Vermont dispute into a reusable checklist for any state taking free or credit-funded AI tools: data terms for code, sole-source and zero-dollar contract approvals, gift acceptance, and a documented pre-deployment risk assessment. Why now: ADS's written answers are due Oct 7.","evidence":"Opened the 7-page JITOC PDF over HTTPS (curl, UA SLED-research-bot/1.0) and extracted text with pdftotext; PDF metadata shows creation Sep 24, 2026. Confirmed the three concern areas, the Bulletin 3.5 citations, the ten questions and document requests, the hosting options question, and the evaluation agreement terms (credits, period, approved use, as-is disclaimer, beta label, liability cap).","architectureImplications":"Hosting choice matters: the same tool can reach Anthropic-hosted or cloud-marketplace models, which changes where code is processed and which data terms apply. Agencies should record which path is used.","governanceImplications":"Shows that 'free' AI trials can still trigger sole-source, zero-dollar contract, Attorney General review and gift-acceptance rules, and that NIST alignment claims are expected to be backed by an assessment completed before use.","securityPrivacyImplications":"Source code can expose system design, security controls, vulnerabilities and embedded credentials. The memo flags that the standard agreement lacks retention, training and deletion terms for that code.","caveats":"Advocacy document from the legislators raising the questions; it states concerns and requests, not findings of violation. The attached agreement is an unsigned standard form, so executed terms may differ. ADS's written answers were not yet available. Vermont Bulletin 3.5 and statutes are state-specific.","streamIds":["state-government"],"roles":{"sales":"Frame this as a contract-file problem every state could share: Vermont's oversight leaders say a free AI cyber trial lacked code-retention and training terms and may have skipped required approvals. Discovery should ask how prospects handle zero-dollar or credit-funded AI agreements and whether a pre-deployment risk assessment is on file. A bounded engagement is reviewing one AI trial's terms and approvals. This memo cannot support claims of a breach or of a legal violation; it poses questions.","engineering":"The technical question is where code goes: Claude tools can call Anthropic-hosted or cloud-marketplace models, so the data path, retention and training terms differ by hosting choice. Before a trial, document which repositories are in scope, strip secrets, choose a hosting path with suitable data terms, and log submissions. Constraint: the agreement shown is an unsigned form, so proof of value is a documented data path and terms check against the executed agreement.","delivery":"Delivery work is assembling the authorization record the committee asked for: executed agreement with state attachments, sole-source or zero-dollar approvals, the pre-deployment NIST-style assessment, and the hosting option used. Ownership sits with the agency secretary and contracts staff, with Attorney General review. Acceptance criteria are proposals, such as complete responses delivered by the committee's deadline. Risks are executed terms matching the vendor form and no assessment having been done before code was shared."},"roleDetails":{"sales":{"customerProblem":"Free or credit-funded AI tools reach state code without the data terms and approvals a paid contract would get.","stakeholders":["Agency of Digital Services secretary","State CTO and CISO","Secretary of Administration","Attorney General's office","Legislative IT oversight committee"],"discoveryQuestions":["How are zero-dollar AI agreements reviewed?","Do your AI agreements cover retention, training and deletion of state data?","Was a risk assessment done before data was shared?","Which hosting option does each AI tool use?"],"valueHypothesis":"A short review of AI trial agreements can find missing data terms and approvals before an oversight body does.","potentialEngagement":"Review of one AI trial's agreement, approvals and pre-deployment assessment, with a gap list and remediation plan.","unsupportedClaims":["That Vermont violated procurement law","That state code was retained or used for training","That Anthropic's terms are worse than other vendors'","That a contract review would have prevented the dispute"]},"engineering":{"fit":"Pre-trial data-path and terms review for AI code-analysis tools.","architectureIntegration":"Identify hosting path (vendor or cloud marketplace), scope repositories, scan for secrets before submission, and log what code was sent.","prerequisites":["Executed agreement with state attachments","Inventory of repositories in scope","Secret scanning","Pre-deployment risk assessment"],"constraints":["Agreement shown was unsigned","Vermont-specific Bulletin 3.5 rules","Beta service with as-is terms","Hosting option not disclosed"],"security":"Treat source code as sensitive: remove secrets, minimize what is shared, prefer hosting with contractual no-retention and no-training terms, and log every submission.","proofOfValue":["Data path documented and matched to executed terms","Secret scan run on all submitted code","Assessment dated before first use"]},"delivery":{"work":"Compile the executed agreement, approvals, risk assessment and hosting details and answer the committee's ten questions.","dependencies":["Contracts staff","Attorney General review","Vendor confirmation of retention and hosting"],"ownership":"Agency of Digital Services secretary with contracts and legal staff.","skillsAdoption":"Agency leaders need to know that free trials still trigger contract rules; developers need secret-handling practices.","governanceCheckpoints":["Sole-source or zero-dollar approval","Attorney General review","Pre-deployment risk assessment","Committee disclosure"],"acceptanceCriteria":["Proposed: complete written responses by the committee deadline","Proposed: every AI trial has an executed agreement on file","Proposed: risk assessment dated before first data sharing"],"risks":["Executed terms mirror the as-is vendor form","No assessment exists","Other credit-funded trials not on the inventory"]}},"retrievedAt":"2026-10-05T22:19:01-05:00","enrichedAt":"2026-10-05T22:19:01-05:00","enrichmentBasis":"retrieved source","accessibilityWorkforceImplications":"Limited direct workforce content; implies agency leaders need training on when trials trigger contract and reporting duties.","procurementImplications":"Directly relevant: zero-dollar and credit-funded AI agreements may need the same sole-source justification, CTO approval, Attorney General review and standard state contract attachments as paid contracts.","operatingModelImplications":"Oversight committees are asking for the contract file and risk assessment as the record of authorization, so agencies need a single owner who can produce it on request.","sourceVerification":{"responseId":"curl-vt-plunkett-memo-20261005","openedUrl":"https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2026/Workgroups/JITOC/Oversight/W~Robert%20Plunkett~Letter%20to%20ADS;%20Anthropic%20Evaluation%20Agreement~9-30-2026.pdf","referenceExcerpt":"Local operation of the tool therefore does not, by itself, establish that source-code content remains within State-controlled systems.","promptVersion":"sled-research-v4.0","model":null,"basis":"agent-reported inspection"}}}]}