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 Country Reset filters
101 people, organisations and other records · 133 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 ×
How are AI developers managing risks? (OECD Artificial Intelligence Papers, No. 45) lists as participants ↓ AI21, Anthropic, Data Privacy and AI, Fayston Preparatory School, Fujitsu, Google, KDDI Corporation, KYP.ai GmbH, MGOIT, Microsoft, NEC Corporation, NTT Corporation, OpenAI, Palo Alto Research / West Lake Research & Education Service, Preferred Networks, Rakuten Group, Salesforce, SoftBank, TELUS, TELUS Digital (names as in the acknowledgements; Annex A lists 20 entities) The OECD paper 'How are AI developers managing risks?' (September 2025) lists, in Annex A, 20 entities that submitted reports under the HAIP reporting framework between 7 February and 15 June 2025, including Anthropic, Google, Microsoft and OpenAI. Copy claim link
Copy claim reference
Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editor Stated in source Supported
Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source; Context: primary · 2 sources
Date 2025-06-15 · snapshot Entries listed 20 (number stated by the source) Scope and limits A list of report submitters, not of organisations found to apply the code. Google DeepMind is not listed as a separate submitter; 'Google' is. The object list is taken from the acknowledgements because the annex table extracts imperfectly (one row's name is missing in the text layer). Other official counts have different coverage and are not reconciled: the Japanese ministry's Hiroshima AI Process page says responses from 19 companies were published on the OECD website in April 2025, and the OECD.AI overview says the opening round resulted in 25 reports.
The evidence 04 primary source Supports the claim
How are AI developers managing risks? Insights from responses to the reporting framework of the Hiroshima AI Process Code of Conduct (OECD Artificial Intelligence Papers, No. 45) ↗ OECD Publishing · 2025-09
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
Source excerpt “This annex provides the names of the 20 entities that submitted reports between 7 February and 15 June 2025.” Location in source Annex A, PDF p. 31
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-10-28
Source details and check notes Authors OECD Version Retrieved on 2026-10-27 (SHA-256 2b49417beaded517b58e67b07bc76cbbee07db3dfecbdf83211306b46e9eb961). Cover: 'September 2025 No. 45' Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-27 Language English (en) Attribution OECD, “How are AI developers managing risks? Insights from responses to the reporting framework of the Hiroshima AI Process Code of Conduct (OECD Artificial Intelligence Papers, No. 45)”, 2025-09. 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, frameworks to law (research/frameworks-to-law). The quotation (19 words) matched the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-27 and again at admission on 2026-10-28, in a fresh retrieval whose SHA-256 equals the pack’s. Read directly from www.oecd.org. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. A cross-family machine check (2026-10-28, item 15) answered the record’s question blind from fresh retrievals and agreed with the record. No human editorial review. primary source Supports the claim
How are AI developers managing risks? Insights from responses to the reporting framework of the Hiroshima AI Process Code of Conduct (OECD Artificial Intelligence Papers, No. 45) ↗ OECD Publishing · 2025-09
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
Source excerpt “AI21 Labs, Anthropic, Data Privacy and AI, Fayston Preparatory School, Fujitsu, Google, KDDI Corporation, KYP.ai GmbH, MGOIT, Microsoft, NEC Corporation, NTT Corporation, OpenAI, Palo Alto Research / West Lake Research & Education Service, Preferred Networks, Rakuten Group, Salesforce, SoftBank, TELUS and TELUS Digital” Location in source Acknowledgements, PDF p. 5
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-10-28
Source details and check notes Authors OECD Version Retrieved on 2026-10-27 (SHA-256 2b49417beaded517b58e67b07bc76cbbee07db3dfecbdf83211306b46e9eb961). Cover: 'September 2025 No. 45' Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-27 Language English (en) Attribution OECD, “How are AI developers managing risks? Insights from responses to the reporting framework of the Hiroshima AI Process Code of Conduct (OECD Artificial Intelligence Papers, No. 45)”, 2025-09. 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, frameworks to law (research/frameworks-to-law). The quotation (41 words) matched the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-27 and again at admission on 2026-10-28, in a fresh retrieval whose SHA-256 equals the pack’s. Read directly from www.oecd.org. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. Introduced as 'organisations that responded to the Hiroshima AI Process reporting framework'. A cross-family machine check (2026-10-28, item 15) answered the record’s question blind from fresh retrievals and agreed with the record. No human editorial review. primary source Context only
Reporting Framework | Hiroshima AI Process ↗ Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Japan (Hiroshima AI Process site) · Publication date unknown
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 Paraphrase: the initial responses, from 19 companies, were published on the OECD website in April 2025.
Location in source Main text
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-10-28
Source details and check notes Authors Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Japan Version Retrieved on 2026-10-27 (SHA-256 348bf2a18e4c8f013bb6cb7d44954aa55e2b1bce00968e7aac6efabeedb56bc4). English page as served on 2026-10-27 Its wording can change; earlier wording is not authenticated. Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-27 Language English (en) Attribution Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Japan, “Reporting Framework | Hiroshima AI Process”. 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, frameworks to law (research/frameworks-to-law). The paraphrase is Selekoa’s, written from the text retrieved on 2026-10-27 and read directly from www.soumu.go.jp; it is not a quotation and was not machine-matched. A cross-family machine check (2026-10-28, item 15) answered the record’s question blind from fresh retrievals and agreed with the record. No human editorial review. primary source Context only
The Hiroshima AI Reporting Framework (OECD.AI overview) ↗ OECD.AI Policy Observatory · Publication date unknown
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
Source excerpt “The first round resulted in 25 reports” Location in source Overview, first paragraph
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-10-28
Source details and check notes Authors OECD Version Retrieved on 2026-10-27 (SHA-256 1ca98b625a137cf9e897e7b41f0e8f928eec11150ca368e83b8dc0b1914f3dfd). OECD.AI page as served on 2026-10-27 (describes Version 2.0 and a 30 September 2026 submission cut-off) Its wording can change; earlier wording is not authenticated. Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-27 Language English (en) Attribution OECD, “The Hiroshima AI Reporting Framework (OECD.AI overview)”. 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, frameworks to law (research/frameworks-to-law). The quotation (7 words) matched the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-27 and again at admission on 2026-10-28, in a fresh retrieval of the same address (the page’s bytes had changed). Read directly from oecd.ai. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. A cross-family machine check (2026-10-28, item 15) answered the record’s question blind from fresh retrievals and agreed with the record. 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. A document lists the participants in a text or process, such as signatories, endorsers, attendees or reporting organisations, at a stated date (schema 2.19). The record gives the list and how many entries it has, stated by the source or counted by Selekoa. Lists of the same text at different dates are separate records. Being listed is not a signature, ratification or compliance, and absence from a list is not a refusal.
Date. Close of the submission window the annex covers; the paper is dated September 2025.
Record ID fl-intl-haip-first-round-listed