Choose an institution to see its records and dossier, or choose a topic.
Through year 2027 · all records, including scheduled dates 2026 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2008 2005 1965 Show Organisations and infrastructure All types Organisation Person Document Concept Infrastructure Public body Reset filters
94 people, organisations and other records · 122 relationships · 34 claims about a valueEverything recorded up to the chosen year, whether or not still in effect · Undated records included
Claim and evidence Close ×
No passage meeting the comparison question “Provisions conditioned on other developers” was found in FGF · May 2026 edition within the inspected scope. Copy claim link
Copy claim reference
Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editor Inferred Supported
Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source
Reasoning and premises Premises: the comparison question asks for the following. A provision that relaxes, adjusts or conditions the developer’s safeguards or commitments on what other developers do or have (often called a “race” or “marginal risk” clause). Scope tests that decide whether a model is covered by the framework are recorded as context, not counted. The inspected scope of FGF · May 2026 edition was: Whole text layer, PDF pp. 1–22 (all sections read). Method: the edition was read in full and its text layer searched case-insensitively for other developer, competit, race, marginal, industry, peer, comparable, similarly safe, other deployed. Hits examined and not counted: PDF p. 4, §1: draws on RSPs and 'industry best practices' (not a conditional provision). PDF p. 5, §2.1: 'industry bodies such as the Frontier Model Forum' as feedback sources. PDF p. 7, §2.2: 'insights from other deployed models' as a risk-assessment input, not a provision that changes OpenAI's actions. PDF p. 18, §4: no Model Report update needed if 'the model is considered similarly safe or safer (under Appendix 2.2 of the Code of Practice)'; it governs report updates only, not safeguards, so it is not counted (see the mapping note). PDF p. 22, §7.2: 'other incidents affecting the industry' as an assessment factor. 'developer' hits (PDF pp. 6, 12) concern a model evading its developer's controls. No hits for 'competit', 'race', 'marginal' or 'peer'. The conclusion is bounded by that scope and method.
Provision Exception · provision ID comparison-d6-competitor Subject version May 2026 edition · Published 2026-05-28 · Effective date not established Date 2026-05-28 · publication Scope and limits Exemption from Model Report updates by reference to the EU Code of Practice's similarly-safe-or-safer test, whose safe reference model may be another provider's model (Code, Appendix 2.1); governs reporting only, not safeguards. A recorded absence within the stated scope: not a claim that the provision was deleted, and not a statement about practice or intent.
The evidence 01 primary source Supports the claim
Frontier Governance Framework — May 2026 edition ↗ OpenAI · 2026-05-28
Archived copy, captured 2026-05-29: Frontier Governance Framework — May 2026 edition ↗
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Paraphrase Within the inspected scope, no passage meeting the comparison question “Provisions conditioned on other developers” was found.
Location in source FGF · May 2026 edition: Whole text layer, PDF pp. 1–22 (all sections read).
Machine-checked · 2026-10-26
Source details and check notes Authors OpenAI Version Frontier Governance Framework May 2026 edition; publication date 2026-05-28. Version date 2026-05-28 Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-09-18 Language English (en) Archive copy Open archived copy, captured 2026-05-29: Frontier Governance Framework — May 2026 edition ↗ . Captured 1 day after the recorded version date. An archive copy shows only what the archive retrieved on 2026-05-29. It does not prove what the page said earlier, and it can differ from the copy checked on 2026-09-18.Attribution OpenAI, Frontier Governance Framework — May 2026 edition. Reuse No open redistribution licence asserted. Selekoa practice: metadata, attributed paraphrases and short attributed quotations under the editorial policy (at most 50 words each; at most 400 quoted words per document across the dataset, and about 10% of a document under about 2,000 words). Documents are linked externally, not redistributed. Publisher terms that forbid quotation override this practice. Check notes Absence recorded by an automated research assistant on 2026-10-15 for the framework comparison, audited in a fresh context, checked by a reviewer from a different model family on 2026-10-15 and re-checked on 2026-10-26. Human editorial review is pending. 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. A recorded absence: within the stated locator scope of an exact edition, no passage stating the keyed provision was found. It is not an inferred deletion and says nothing about other documents, practice or intent.
Date. Absence recorded for this edition, dated by its publication date.
Record ID cmp-frontier-governance-2026-d6-competitor