Claim · 2024-09-09 · publication · Stated in source · Supported

Under its safety guidelines for model and algorithm developers, version 1.0 of the AI Safety Governance Framework states that developers should, at key stages such as requirements analysis, model design and training-data selection, take measures including internal discussion, expert review, science-and-technology ethics review and hearing public opinion.

One recorded claim. The claim panel gives its qualification, the source passages with their place in each source, and how it was checked.

What it connects

AI Safety Governance Framework, version 1.0 (人工智能安全治理框架 V1.0) → states provision → Developers to apply measures such as internal discussion, expert review and science-and-technology ethics review at key stages

Where it appears

No collection page holds this claim. It is listed with its records in the explorer.

Claim and evidence

AI Safety Governance Framework, version 1.0 (人工智能安全治理框架 V1.0)states provision ↓Developers to apply measures such as internal discussion, expert review and science-and-technology ethics review at key stages

Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editorStated in sourceSupported

Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source

Provision: Required action · provision ID developer-ethics-review
Subject version: 1.0 · Published 2024-09-09 · Effective date not established
Date: 2024-09-09 · publication Records dated 2024 →

Scope and limitsWhat the cited edition says, as guidance in a technical document of TC260 (a national standardisation technical committee); it is not evidence that any developer adopted, implemented or was required to follow it.

The evidence 01

primary sourceSupports the claim

人工智能安全治理框架（V1.0）

全国网络安全标准化技术委员会 · 2024-09 · In Simplified Chinese (zh-Hans)

Archived copy, captured 2026-10-17: 人工智能安全治理框架（V1.0）

Cite the original source

Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.

Source excerpt

“研发者应在需求分析、项目立项、模型设计开发、训练数据选用等关键环节 … 组织专家评议、科技伦理审查、听取公众意见”

Location in source §6.1(a) 模型算法研发者安全开发指引

How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher

Machine-checked · 2026-10-31

Source details and check notes

Authors: 全国网络安全标准化技术委员会
Version: Dated document, retrieved on 2026-10-27 (SHA-256 0cbf340164593f5fd98d82406979e43e82ce7505ea7bd2a0fd19a00dfd09412d) directly from the publisher. Version: 1727568303900999.pdf. Chinese edition linked from the CAC news item of 9 September 2024. The TC260 upload URL cited in later documents (tc260.org.cn/upload/2024-09-09/1725849192841090989.pdf) now redirects to TC260's home page; the English edition linked from the CAC page was not inspected. English title (machine translation): “AI Safety Governance Framework (V1.0)”. Publisher as printed on the inspected expression: 全国网络安全标准化技术委员会 (hosted by the Cyberspace Administration of China, cac.gov.cn).
Canonical address: Open the canonical source ↗
Accessed: 2026-10-27
Language: Simplified Chinese (zh-Hans)
Archive copy: Open archived copy, captured 2026-10-17: 人工智能安全治理框架（V1.0）. An archive copy shows only what the archive retrieved on 2026-10-17. It does not prove what the page said earlier, and it can differ from the copy checked on 2026-10-27.
Attribution: 全国网络安全标准化技术委员会, “人工智能安全治理框架（V1.0）”, 2024-09.
Reuse: No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata, editorial paraphrases and short attributed quotations (at most 50 words each). Recheck terms before wider redistribution.
Check notes: Candidate pack passage, Chinese frontier-AI institutions, third collection (research/china-labs-3). The quotation (48 words, each CJK character counted as one) matched the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 and again in a fresh retrieval the same day, read directly from the publisher. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. Line-break spaces between Chinese characters and compatibility forms (⻛ for 风) in the PDF’s text layer were normalised at admission. Elided quotation: the ellipses mark omitted words, so the passage is not continuous in the source. English machine translation, not verified by a person: “Developers should, at key stages such as requirements analysis, project approval, model design and development and training-data selection … take measures such as holding internal discussions, organising expert review, conducting science-and-technology ethics review and hearing public opinion”. A cross-family machine check (2026-10-31, item K058) re-read the record’s sources directly and found full support. No human editorial review.

Status and meaning

Editorial status. Not reviewed by an editor. An exploratory record that no editor has accepted. This status does not say whether a person has read any linked passage. Each evidence record above shows how it was checked.

Relation. An exact framework edition, or another document with an exact expression, states one provision: a capability threshold or risk level and its trigger, a required safeguard or action, a decision authority (who decides, recommends, can overrule or is informed), a stated exception, or another statement of its content, such as a licence term or a prospectus statement. The passage records what the document says, not implementation, compliance or effectiveness. Provisions with the same key align across editions of one family.

Date. Release date of the cited edition, as the dataset records it; the provision states no effective date.

Record ID c3-governance-tc260-asgf-v1-developer-ethics-review