the article specifically says:

> The policy change is separate and unrelated to Anthropic’s discussions with the Pentagon, according to a source familiar with the matter.

I'm not fond of this trend of stating a position and attributing it to "a source familiar with the situation"

It combines interpretation of meaning with ambiguity to allow the reporter to assert anything they want. The ambiguity is there to protect the identity of the source but it has to be a more discrete disclosure of information in return. If you can't check the person you can still check what they said.

I would be ok with direct quotes from an anonymous source. That removes the interpretation of meaning at least.

As it is written, it would not be inaccurate to say this if their source was the lesswrong post, or even an earlier thread here on HN.

Phrasing "A source with direct knowledge of the situation" might remove some of the leeway for editorialising, but without sharing what the source actually said, it opens the door to saying anything at all and declaring "That's what I thought they meant" when challenged.

It's unfalsifyible journalism.