Nor has it ever claimed to be. Your beef is with another worldwide communion that makes that statement. And some days I think they do a better job of it!
The problem with A.C. is that, if you accept it's arguments, then EVERY Roman Catholic ordination since Vatican II is equally invalid. Indeed schismatics have made precisely this point (see HERE) So you can accept Roman and Anglican orders as both equally valid or equally invalid, take your pick.
For a neutral third party look at the matter I give you the Oecumenical Patriarch's Encyclical on Anglican Orders:
from the Oecumenical Patriarch to the Presidents of the Particular Eastern Orthodox Churches, 1922
[The Holy Synod has studied the report of the Committee and notes:]
1. That the ordination of Matthew Parker as Archbishop of Canterbury by four bishops is a fact established by history.
2. That in this and subsequent ordinations there are found in their fullness those orthodox and indispensable, visible and sensible elements of valid episcopal ordination - viz. the laying on of hands, the Epiclesis of the All-Holy Spirit and also the purpose to transmit the charisma of the Episcopal ministry.
3. That the orthodox theologians who have scientifically examined the question have almost unanimously come to the same conclusions and have declared themselves as accepting the validity of Anglican Orders.
4. That the practice in the Church affords no indication that the Orthodox Church has ever officially treated the validity of Anglican Orders as in doubt, in such a way as would point to the re-ordination of the Anglican clergy as required in the case of the union of the two Churches