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 ×
v3.0's example for adjusting recommended security levels refers to models with capabilities not meaningfully different from other publicly available models that have weaker security applied, adding that the marginal benefit of higher security is then limited; v2.0's example referred to other widely available models that have not demonstrably caused or contributed to severe risks. Copy claim link
Copy claim reference
Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editor Inferred Supported
Supporting evidence: primary · 2 sources
Reasoning and premises Premises: FSF · v3.0 states the provision as quoted in its provision record (PDF p. 9 (printed p. 9), §2.2 Misuse Critical Capability Levels, second paragraph, second sentence); FSF · v2.0 states it as quoted in its provision record (PDF p. 5 (printed p. 5), Misuse Critical Capability Levels, paragraph beginning “These recommended security levels”, second sentence). The difference described is read directly from the two passages.
Basis of the change Inferred by comparing the two editions. No publisher statement of this change is recorded. Provision Exception · provision ID fsf-security-level-adjustment Subject version v3.0 · Published 2025-09-22 · Effective date not established Object version v2.0 · Published 2025-02-04 · Effective date not established Date 2025-09-22 · publication Scope and limits A textual difference between the two editions’ wording of this keyed provision. It is not an assessment of whether the change strengthened or weakened the framework, and not evidence of implementation.
The evidence 02 primary source Supports the claim
Frontier Safety Framework — v3.0 ↗ Google DeepMind · 2025-09-22
Archived copy, captured 2025-09-22: Frontier Safety Framework — v3.0 ↗
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 FSF v3.0 states that an adjustment of its recommended security levels may occur if, for example, a model does not possess capabilities meaningfully different from other publicly available models that have weaker security applied, in which case the marginal benefit of higher security is limited.
Location in source PDF p. 9 (printed p. 9), §2.2 Misuse Critical Capability Levels, second paragraph, second sentence
Machine-checked · 2026-10-03
Source details and check notes Authors Google DeepMind Version Frontier Safety Framework v3.0; publication date 2025-09-22. Version date 2025-09-22 Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-09-18 Language English (en) Archive copy Open archived copy, captured 2025-09-22: Frontier Safety Framework — v3.0 ↗ . Captured on the recorded version date. An archive copy shows only what the archive retrieved on 2025-09-22. 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 — v3.0. 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 Paraphrase checked by an automated research assistant on 2026-10-03 against the cited edition; the edition’s own wording is quoted in its provision record. Human editorial review is pending. primary source Supports the claim
Frontier Safety Framework — v2.0 ↗ Google DeepMind · 2025-02-04
Archived copy, captured 2025-02-05: Frontier Safety Framework — v2.0 ↗
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 FSF v2.0 states that an adjustment of its recommended security levels may occur if, for example, a model does not possess capabilities meaningfully different from other widely available models that have not demonstrably caused or contributed to severe risks.
Location in source PDF p. 5 (printed p. 5), Misuse Critical Capability Levels, paragraph beginning “These recommended security levels”, second sentence
Machine-checked · 2026-10-03
Source details and check notes Authors Google DeepMind Version Frontier Safety Framework v2.0; publication date 2025-02-04. Version date 2025-02-04 Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-09-18 Language English (en) Archive copy Open archived copy, captured 2025-02-05: Frontier Safety Framework — v2.0 ↗ . Captured 1 day after the recorded version date. An archive copy shows only what the archive retrieved on 2025-02-05. 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 — v2.0. 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 Paraphrase checked by an automated research assistant on 2026-10-03 against the cited edition; the edition’s own wording is quoted in its provision record. 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. One scoped difference between document versions. The claim identifies publisher-stated change, official changelog/redline, or an explicitly inferred comparison. It does not establish implementation, effectiveness or a safety ranking.
Date. Dated by the later edition’s publication date.
Record ID provchange-fsf-v3-0-security-level-adjustment