Claim · 2026-07-09 · publication · Stated in source · Supported

Muse Spark 1.1 Evaluation Report states what the model-card question “Chemical and biological” asks.

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

Muse Spark 1.1 Evaluation Report → states provision → Chemical and biological

Where it appears

Model cards compared →

Claim and evidence

Muse Spark 1.1 Evaluation Reportstates provision ↓Chemical and biological

Machine-checkedStated in sourceSupported

Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source

Provision: Model-card question · provision ID model-card-q07
Subject version: As dated July 9, 2026 · Published 2026-07-09 · Effective date not established
Date: 2026-07-09 · publication Records dated 2026 →

Scope and limitsThe report says the model was reevaluated and retains the unmitigated high-risk determination. Its opening summary uses “cannot rule out” high-risk capability instead. The residual-risk conclusion after mitigations is moderate or lower. What the card states, quoted from the expression read. A card is the developer’s own account: not evidence that an evaluation was run as described, that a safeguard works, or that a finding is independent.

The evidence 01

primary sourceSupports the claim

Muse Spark 1.1 Evaluation Report

Meta · 2026-07-09

Cite the original source

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

Source excerpt

“We therefore retain the “high risk” determination for the unmitigated model under Outcomes CB-1 and CB-2.”

Location in source §2.1 Chemical & Biological Risks, Summary of Results, PDF p. 12, printed p. 11

How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher

Machine-checked · 2026-11-05

Source details and check notes

Authors: Meta
Version: Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-11-05 (SHA-256 cd25634e0c8a3960d47dadfe6f49eefd3c12f6f62ad0dfbdf1cb4c96b5b5ade9) directly from the publisher’s host. Retrieved again on 2026-11-05, after the adjudication, with the same SHA-256; the cross-family check of 2026-11-05 retrieved the same SHA-256.
Canonical address: Open the canonical source ↗
Accessed: 2026-11-05
Language: English (en)
Attribution: Meta, “Muse Spark 1.1 Evaluation Report”, 2026-07-09.
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, model cards compared (research/model-cards-3). The quotation (16 words) matched the card’s text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-11-05 (SHA-256 cd25634e0c8a3960d47dadfe6f49eefd3c12f6f62ad0dfbdf1cb4c96b5b5ade9) and again on 2026-11-05, after the adjudication, in a fresh retrieval with the same SHA-256. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes, PDF line-break hyphens and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. The pack was prepared by a model of the GPT family (Codex) and checked by a Claude model. No human editorial review.

Status and meaning

Editorial status. Machine-checked. Machines found this record and checked it against its sources; no person accepted it individually. 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. Dated as the card read is dated: its printed date, as the source records it.

Record ID mc-cell-meta-muse-spark-1-1-q07