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 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1994 1993 1992 1991 1989 1986 1985 1984 1983 1979 1966 1965 1961 1960 1955 1952 1950 1872 1863 Show Organisations and infrastructure All types Organisation Person Document Concept Infrastructure Public body Reset filters
100 people, organisations and other records · 129 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 “Board or external oversight” was found in Meta FAF · v1.1 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 role the edition gives to a board, board committee, trust, or external party in overseeing or reviewing those decisions. The inspected scope of Meta FAF · v1.1 was: Whole edition, PDF pp. 1–21, read in the text layer of the decoded PDF of the Internet Archive capture of 2025-02-13; cover and PDF pp. 12–13 and 19 inspected visually. Method: the edition was read in full and its text layer searched case-insensitively for board, trust, oversight, external, third, review. Hits examined and not counted: PDF p. 13, Table 1, footnote 7: the final assessment of uplift involves numerous experts, “including third parties where appropriate”; this is involvement in an assessment, not a role in overseeing or reviewing decisions. No board or oversight stems. Trust hits (PDF pp. 8–9, 21) concern trustworthiness or trusted release partners. External hits (PDF pp. 6–8, 10–11, 17–18, 21) concern reference models, expertise, threat modelling or the release context. Review hits (PDF pp. 5, 8) describe centralised, internal review. No board or external party is given a role in reviewing decisions. The conclusion is bounded by that scope and method.
Provision Who decides · provision ID comparison-d4-oversight Subject version v1.1 · Published 2025-02-03 · Effective date not established Date 2025-02-03 · publication Scope and limits The edition involves third parties “where appropriate” in the assessment of uplift (Table 1, footnote 7, PDF p. 13); this is recorded as context, not as a role in overseeing or reviewing decisions. 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 AI Framework — Version 1.1 ↗ Meta · 2025-02-03
Archived copy, captured 2025-02-13: Frontier AI Framework — Version 1.1 ↗
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 “Board or external oversight” was found.
Location in source Meta FAF · v1.1: Whole edition, PDF pp. 1–21, read in the text layer of the decoded PDF of the Internet Archive capture of 2025-02-13; cover and PDF pp. 12–13 and 19 inspected visually
Machine-checked · 2026-10-27
Source details and check notes Authors Meta Version Frontier AI Framework, Version 1.1, as captured by the Internet Archive on 2025-02-13, the earliest complete capture located. The original address has returned HTTP 500 since April 2026; a revised expression under the same label was captured from 2025-03-28 and is recorded separately. Version date 2025-02-03 Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-03 Language English (en) Archive copy Open archived copy, captured 2025-02-13: Frontier AI Framework — Version 1.1 ↗ . Captured 10 days after the recorded version date. An archive copy shows only what the archive retrieved on 2025-02-13. It does not prove what the page said earlier, and it can differ from the copy checked on 2026-10-03.Attribution Meta, Frontier AI Framework, Version 1.1 (2025). 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 on 2026-10-28 by the maintainer’s decision of 2026-10-28, on the reading of a reviewer from a different model family on 2026-10-27, which read the whole edition in the Internet Archive capture of 2025-02-13, which it retrieved and hashed (decoded PDF SHA-256 9fa301df…cc21; research/frontier-framework-comparison/codex-meta-v1-1-2026-10-27.md) before opening the comparison’s stored cells. The reviewer proposed “stated, partly” on Table 1, footnote 7 (PDF p. 13); the decision records that passage as context. One reading; no second reviewer. 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-meta-faf-v1-1-d4-oversight