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 FSF · 2024 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 FSF · 2024 was: Whole text layer, PDF pp. 1–7 (all sections, both tables, footnotes and acknowledgements read). Method: the edition was read in full and its text layer searched case-insensitively for other developers/labs/companies/models/organi(sations), industry, widely available / publicly available, competit / race, field. Hits examined and not counted: 'industry' hits are mitigation descriptions, not conditions on other developers: Security Level 0 'Industry standard development and enterprise controls' (PDF p. 3) and Deployment Level 1 'prevailing industry safeguards' (PDF p. 4). 'field' hits only in the acknowledgements (PDF p. 7, a surname). No provision makes the developer's actions depend on what other developers do or have. The conclusion is bounded by that scope and method.
Provision Exception · provision ID comparison-d6-competitor Subject version v1.0 · Published 2024-05-17 · Effective date not established Date 2024-05-17 · publication Scope and limits 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 Safety Framework — v1.0 ↗ Google DeepMind · 2024-05-17
Archived copy, captured 2024-05-17: Frontier Safety Framework — v1.0 ↗
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 FSF · 2024: Whole text layer, PDF pp. 1–7 (all sections, both tables, footnotes and acknowledgements read)
Machine-checked · 2026-10-26
Source details and check notes Authors Google DeepMind Version Frontier Safety Framework v1.0; publication date 2024-05-17. Version date 2024-05-17 Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-09-18 Language English (en) Archive copy Open archived copy, captured 2024-05-17: Frontier Safety Framework — v1.0 ↗ . Captured on the recorded version date. An archive copy shows only what the archive retrieved on 2024-05-17. It does not prove what the page said earlier, and it can differ from the copy checked on 2026-09-18.Attribution Google DeepMind, Frontier Safety Framework — v1.0. 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-fsf-2024-d6-competitor