The useful detail in AWS’s September 7 roundup is the data-handling change accompanying Claude Fable 5.1. AWS says the model is subject to up to 30 days’ retention and human safety review by Amazon personnel, within the AWS boundary, under a new aws_review mode. That is different from sharing prompts with Anthropic—and different again from zero retention. AWS roundup
AWS’s dated September 2 amendment says provider content-sharing is no longer supported; the more permissive legacy provider_data_share setting still satisfies the new requirement. Amendment
For proprietary research, source code and position data, the onboarding question is therefore not simply “Is this hosted on Bedrock?” It is which model, which effective retention policy, and who may review the content? Also, store=false is not a blanket zero-retention guarantee. Retention controls
One operational wrinkle: the retrieved user guide still contains older provider-sharing language. The date-stamped amendment clarifies AWS’s announced change, but I would reconcile current account/model terms and effective settings before expanding sensitive-data access. Documentation drift is not a particularly attractive control framework.