Enterprises Hedge AI Model Strategy as Controversy Surrounds Anthropic's Claude Fable 5
AI News Desk
·
VentureBeat
··
11 min read
Two-thirds of enterprises have hedged their AI model strategy after Anthropic's Claude Fable 5 was pulled offline due to a U.S. export-control order.
Two-thirds of enterprises have hedged their AI model strategy, and the past few weeks of controversy around Anthropic's Claude Fable 5 model showed why that posture has gone mainstream. On June 12, a U.S. export-control order pulled Anthropic's Claude Fable 5 — the most capable model on the market — offline for every customer, with no warning and no timeline.
It returned this week wrapped in tighter safeguards, after China's Z.ai released its open-weights GLM-5.2 into the vacuum. New VentureBeat Pulse Research, which surveyed 145 enterprises across these last few weeks, shows that two-thirds had already hedged their model strategy before the order came down: 51% blend closed frontier models with open-weight models deployed on their own infrastructure, and another 16% are moving core workflows off closed APIs entirely. The remaining third was all-in on closed ecosystems when the lights went out.
The blackout put a spotlight on vendor dependency, by showing what happens when the model you rely on disappears. But vendor dependency is only the most visible piece of a deeper problem: Most enterprises lack the monitoring to know when an AI system they've put into production stops working correctly. Just 1 in 10 enterprises has automated monitoring that would catch an AI model drifting, misbehaving, or failing in production.
Roughly a quarter would learn of a production failure only when end users — internal or external — report it, or lack the visibility to detect it at all. And 79% of enterprise organizations have already taken a real financial or operational hit from autonomous agents — most often shadow AI, unauthorized agentic work run by enterprises' own employees on corporate credit cards, outside anyone's oversight. About this data: VentureBeat Pulse Research surveyed 145 qualified respondents at organizations with 100 or more employees in June 2026, with fielding spanning the Fable 5 blackout that began June 12.
The sample is self-selected and directional: 41% work in technology/software, 20% are consultants or advisors, and the respondent base skews senior and technical — CIO/CTO/CISOs (18%), directors of engineering/IT (14%), enterprise architects (12%). More than half of the respondents were from companies with 2,500 employees or more. While our sample is not huge, what you can trust more than the exact percentages is the pattern: Every question in the survey, independently, points the same way, with deployment running ahead of governance, visibility, and cost control.
The full methodology is in the report. How the Fable 5 export order rewrote enterprise AI risk Fable 5 launched June 9 to immediate acclaim — and sticker shock, at $10 per million input tokens and $50 per million output. Three days later, the U.S.
government issued an emergency export-control directive barring access by foreign nationals. Anthropic, with no way to verify nationality in real time, suspended the model for everyone. Z.ai has continued to pick up momentum; on Wednesday it released an open agentic coding environment, called Zcode.
OpenAI, meanwhile, previewed its cutting-edge GPT-5.6 line on June 26. Enterprises had already spent the spring learning what AI dependence costs in dollars. Uber burned through its entire 2026 AI coding budget in four months after Claude Code adoption hit 84% of its roughly 5,000 engineers, Forbes reported.
Microsoft canceled most internal Claude Code licenses in its Windows and Microsoft 365 division, steering engineers to its own tooling, according to The Verge. June added the harder lesson: The model your workflows depend on can vanish overnight, by government order, through no decision of yours or your vendor's. And Chinese companies like DeepSeek were releasing hugely disruptive, powerful models, driving down costs to a fraction of Western ones.
Brian Craig, senior director of architecture at Liberty IT, the Ireland-based engineering arm of Liberty Mutual, one of the world’s largest insurance companies, saw both lessons collide in real time. Craig is Irish, which meant the export order hit him directly as a foreign-national user. Onstage at VentureBeat's AI Impact event in New York on June 24, mid-blackout, I asked him about it.
"Fable arrived, and immediately you saw the sticker price of using it, and you went, 'Ooh, goodness, it better be really good,'" Craig said. "But luckily enough, we didn’t get to use it enough to get to fall in love with it." Then it was gone. The hedge was already built before the blackout hit Craig's company was built to route around exactly this kind of disruption.
Liberty IT runs what it calls an AI backbone — roughly 50 components spanning security, governance, observability, and orchestration, each independently replaceable. "You can't lock in right now in one vendor and even one framework," Craig told the room. "You need to keep being able to have the flexibility with that backbone to be able to hook into different models, different vendors, depending not so much on who's the flavor of the day, but on what you can feel confident about for the next six months." The survey shows Craig has plenty of company.
A 51% majority of enterprises run a hybrid posture — closed frontier models for general reasoning, open-weight models deployed locally for specialized execution — and 16% are making a hard pivot, moving core workflows onto open weights running on their own hybrid or private cloud. The 32% holding a closed commitment are candid about why: The operational overhead of self-hosting still outweighs the savings for them. After June, that calculus has a new variable in it.
Defection is now the active posture, and the target may surprise you. Asked which primary AI vendor they are most likely to downsize or phase out over the next 12 months, respondents named Microsoft first at 30% — most citing cutbacks to Copilot and Azure AI frameworks in favor of direct model access — ahead of the 28% who plan to trim no vendor at all. OpenAI drew 21%, largely on pricing volatility, with Anthropic at 15% and Google at 6%.
No vendor faces an exodus. But loyalty by inertia has ended: Among these enterprises, actively cutting at least one provider is now more common than expanding across all of them. Just 1 in 10 enterprises would catch a failing production model automatically How would an enterprise know if one of its production AI models was drifting, behaving unsafely, or failing to complete tasks?
We asked directly. Forty percent say they are very confident they would detect it. The question also asked what that confidence rests on, and respondents split into two camps: 30% rely on humans reviewing critical AI outputs, and just 10% — 14 of the 145 organizations — have automated monitoring and alerting running against production systems.
The remaining respondents hold weaker positions still: 32% expect to catch most issues "eventually," 19% say they would likely hear about a failure from end users first, and 8% report no systematic visibility into production AI behavior at all. That distinction matters because the two approaches are very different. Human review may seem like the gold standard, but it only reaches the outputs someone designates as important for such a review — and it happens at the pace humans can move at, with the inconsistency any manual process carries.
Automated monitoring watches everything the system produces, continuously, and flags anomalies as they happen — for the same reason enterprises stopped depending on manual checks for uptime and security a decade ago. As agentic workloads multiply output volumes far beyond what any review team can read, the manual approach starts to fall behind. The leaders at our June 24 event in New York treat human review as a designed control with automation underneath it.
"Nothing gets deployed into production unless it's a human actually reviewing it and signing off," Craig said of Liberty's agentic software factory, where planning, coding, testing, critic, and librarian agents ship features from epic to production. "It always has to be risk-based. That's why we work for an insurance company." Todd Johnson, the Morgan Stanley managing director who runs agentic AI across the bank's end-of-day P&L controller process, described the same principle from finance: "One of our strong principles in our AI governance generally is that there always has to be human accountability, even if there's a degree of automation." VentureBeat covered Morgan Stanley's new results around its P&L resolution agent system separately.
Liberty Mutual and Morgan Stanley chose manual sign-off deliberately, layered on top of observability, identity, and governance infrastructure. Whether the human-review camp has similar infrastructure underneath is more than a single-select question can establish. The 16% who separately named missing observability tooling as their biggest governance barrier are the ones saying outright that it hasn't been built.
The top governance barrier is organizational: no single owner for AI across platforms Why does the AI visibility tooling never get built? The respondents' answers suggest it is an organizational shortcoming. The single most-cited barrier to governing AI across platforms is the absence of a single owner or accountable team, at 32%.
Vendor opacity follows at 25%, missing tooling at 16% — and a lack of talent lands dead last at 5%. The skills exist, but the organizational mandate does not: Only 38% say a central team actually governs AI behavior across their platforms today, 21% say ownership is unclear or actively contested between teams, and 17% say no role holds formal accountability at all. The AI surface being governed makes the vacuum worse.
Fully 85% of enterprises run two or more platforms each claiming to be the "primary" AI layer — ERP, ITSM, productivity suite, data platform, each with its own AI, its own controls, and its own assumptions. 36% describe an open contest between four or more. Just 8% have consolidated to one.
Asked in a free-text question what one thing they would fix, respondents converged from different directions on the same answer: a single accountable owner, and a control plane that abstracts cost, drift, and model choice away from the end user. 79% have already paid for an agent control failure — led by shadow AI The cost of the vacuum is showing up on corporate cards. Asked to name the most severe financial or operational control failure they have experienced from autonomous agents, 49% of enterprises cite shadow AI — departmental teams running unauthorized agentic pipelines on corporate credit cards, bypassing central financial oversight entirely.
Another 25% have been hit by an infinite-loop bill, an uncaught recursive workflow racking up thousands in token costs in a single incident, and 6% by an agent that degraded production databases with unthrottled queries. Only 21% report guarded stability, with hard token throttling and budget caps at the infrastructure layer. Add it up: 79% of these enterprises have already paid for an agent control failure in real money or real downtime.
Finally, the economics of tokens suggest the pressure will keep rising. Per-token inference costs are falling 70 to 80% a year, and agentic workloads consume 100 to 500 times the tokens of the LLM tools they replaced. Brian Gracely, senior director of portfolio strategy at Red Hat, told our New York audience the answer starts with right-sizing: "If I'm simply trying to resolve an insurance claim, I don't need to know about the history of Western civilization in my model.
I don't need to know soccer scores." Enterprises are pairing smaller, specialized models with semantic routing, he said, so the platform decides which requests genuinely need frontier-scale reasoning — and which are burning premium tokens on commodity work. The bottom line: Replaceability is spreading faster than ownership The survey describes enterprises moving fast on AI with weak controls underneath. 58% are adding more AI initiatives than they retire.
85% run multiple platforms that each claim to be the primary AI layer. Three times as many enterprises rely on human review to catch a failing production model as have automated monitoring in place. And 79% have already paid for an agent control failure — most often unauthorized agent spending on corporate cards, outside IT's oversight.
On one problem, enterprises have clearly adapted: model dependency. Two-thirds hedge their model strategy, either running open-weight models alongside closed ones (51%) or moving core workflows off closed APIs entirely (16%). The Fable 5 shutdown showed the value of that position — the hedged companies could route around a model that a government order made unavailable overnight.
The remaining problems are internal, and no purchase fixes them: 32% name the lack of a single accountable owner as their top governance barrier, and 17% say no role holds formal accountability for AI at all. Assigning an owner costs nothing and requires no vendor. It still hasn't happened at most of these companies.
Our coming Q3 wave of research will measure whether June changed this — whether enterprises assigned owners and installed automated monitoring, or just added a second model and moved on. Why this matters: The recent controversy surrounding Anthropic's Claude Fable 5 model highlights the importance of hedging AI model strategies for enterprises. With two-thirds of enterprises already taking a hybrid approach, combining closed frontier models with open-weight models or moving core workflows off closed APIs, it's clear that vendor dependency is a major concern.
The lack of automated monitoring and single accountable ownership for AI systems across platforms poses significant risks, with 79% of enterprises already experiencing financial or operational hits from autonomous agents. As AI deployment accelerates, enterprises must prioritize governance, visibility, and cost control to mitigate these risks. The challenge lies in assigning ownership and implementing automated monitoring, which requires no vendor purchase but a fundamental shift in organizational approach.
Ultimately, the ability to adapt and evolve AI strategies will be crucial for enterprises to navigate the rapidly changing AI landscape.
