Claim · 2025-03-11 · revision · Stated in source · Supported

Operator System Card states in part what the model-card question “Release decision” 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

Operator System Card → states provision → Release decision

Where it appears

Model cards compared →

Claim and evidence

Operator System Cardstates provision ↓Release decision

Machine-checkedStated in sourceSupported

Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source

Provision: Model-card question · provision ID model-card-q15
Subject version: As dated January 23, 2025 on its cover, with a section updated March 11, 2025 · Published 2025-01-23 · Effective date not established · Revised 2025-03-11
Date: 2025-03-11 · revision Records dated 2025 →

Scope and limitsThe deployment statement follows the red-teaming findings and additional mitigations (“Accordingly”). It meets the assessment-followed-by-release case of maintainer decision 6a, without describing a decision or naming its maker. Availability alone and the preparation statement in §4 are set aside under maintainer decision 13a. Search for the rest of the criterion: §§3.1–3.3, §4 opening, §4.7 and §5.2; whole-card decision search. Terms searched: “decision”, “decided”, “deploy”, “release”, “accordingly”, “deemed”. Passages read and not counted: §4, PDF p. 5: “We prepared Operator for deployment” describes preparation, not a release decision. §4.4, PDF p. 10: The stated decision to refuse high-risk tasks is a safeguard decision, not a deployment decision. Stated, partly: the passage has what the question’s criterion asks for, in a weaker or narrower form than the criterion’s own words. 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

Operator System Card

OpenAI · 2025-01-23

Cite the original source

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

Source excerpt

“Accordingly, Operator is initially being deployed as a research preview to a limited group of users”

Location in source §3.2 Red Teaming, PDF p. 3

How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher

Machine-checked · 2026-11-05

Source details and check notes

Authors: OpenAI
Version: Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-11-05 (SHA-256 72c5d16df18fe90a0b76ad4839aecbd2ebd945360e14b161fcaceb3d6b17e07d) 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. The copy read contains section 4.7, marked 'Updated March 11, 2025'; the cross-family check of 2026-11-05 found the same date in the file's metadata. An Internet Archive capture of 2025-01-23 (https://web.archive.org/web/20250123194555/https://cdn.openai.com/operator_system_card.pdf), which would hold the January expression, was located through the archive's availability index on 2026-11-05; it was not retrieved or hashed.
Version date: 2025-03-11
Canonical address: Open the canonical source ↗
Accessed: 2026-11-05
Language: English (en)
Attribution: OpenAI, “Operator System Card”, 2025-01-23.
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 72c5d16df18fe90a0b76ad4839aecbd2ebd945360e14b161fcaceb3d6b17e07d) 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. A cross-family machine check (2026-11-05, item 28) checked this passage’s cell and agreed with the pack. 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: the date of its revision, as the source records it.

Record ID mc-cell-openai-operator-q15