Laws compared
A cell records what a text requires of the parties it defines. It does not show that any developer falls within them, or complied.
What does each binding government instrument that addresses developers of frontier or general-purpose AI models say on the same questions? Each column is one instrument; each row is one question, worded so that it fits every instrument. The questions are Selekoa’s; an instrument’s own terms appear only in quotation marks. Some instruments address providers of services rather than developers, and the first row quotes the party each one defines.
Question Q04Framework published
Must that document be published, or given to a public authority?
Criterion: A provision requiring the document in Q03 to be published, or submitted or made available to a public authority. Not applicable where Q03 finds no such document.
What the statuses mean
- Stated
- A passage of the instrument meets the question’s criterion as worded, however conditional or narrow its scope. The condition or scope is in the note.
- Stated, partly
- A passage has what the criterion asks for, but in a weaker form than the criterion’s own words: for example, a power (“may”) where the criterion asks for a duty (“shall”), or a duty without the deadline the question asks about.
- Not found in the recorded search
- No passage meeting the criterion was found. The cell lists the sections read, the search terms and every passage set aside, with the reason. It does not show that the instrument lacks such a provision elsewhere, or that no other law imposes one.
- Does not apply
- The question does not arise for this instrument, for the reason given (for example, there is no framework document whose publication could be asked about).
Four rules decide “partly” in borderline cases:
- An order to an agency to impose a duty counts as partly.
- Protection only by reference to another law counts as partly.
- “Without undue delay” counts as a stated deadline.
- Required security measures for model weights count as risk-management measures under Q03.
Every stated or partly cell quotes the instrument’s own text with its article, section or page; Chinese passages carry Selekoa’s working translation. Three cells give a paraphrase with its locator instead, and say so. A not-found cell lists the sections read, the terms searched and every passage set aside, with the reason.
Paraphrased with its locator, not quoted: quoting it would pass the source’s quotation limit, or the source’s length is not known.
Limits of this comparison
- A cell records what the text requires of the parties it defines. It does not show that any named developer falls within them, or that anyone complied.
- A not-found cell is bounded by its search: the sections read and the terms searched. Another provision, or another law, may still impose the duty.
- The Code of Practice is a compliance route, not a law. Executive Order 14110 is revoked, and the BIS rule’s rescission was announced; each column shows its standing.
- The table compares and does not rank. Statuses are not scores and are not to be summed.
- Biological and chemical risk provisions are recorded at policy level only.
- Dates keep their kind: adoption, signature, approval, publication, entry into force and application are different events. A computed date is marked as computed.
How we searched
The instruments started from those on the frameworks-and-law page. A column was kept where the instrument is binding, or is the AI Act’s stated means of compliance (the Code), and places duties on developers or providers of frontier or general-purpose AI models. Fifty other instruments on that page were set aside, each with its reason, in the research pack: proposed or vetoed texts, guidance and reports, voluntary commitments, binding texts that place no duty on developers, and one standard whose text was not retrieved (GB 45438-2025).
United Kingdom: within the searches made, no UK law or other binding instrument placing duties on developers of such models was located. This is not a finding that none exists. The 2024 King’s Speech announced an intent to legislate; the 2026 briefing notes contain none of the searched terms; the memoranda with developers state that they are not legally binding; and title searches of legislation.gov.uk for 2023 to 2026 found one instrument, which places a duty on the Information Commissioner.
Other US federal texts: as read, none places a binding duty on developers. Executive Order 14409 of 2 June 2026 provides for a voluntary access framework and says that its section 3 authorises no licensing requirement.
Not yet read: the Republic of Korea’s AI Basic Act, Japan’s AI Promotion Act (2025), China’s provisions on deep synthesis (2022) and on algorithm recommendation (2021), and Colorado SB 24-205 (2024). They are not in the dataset; a later pack starts with Korea.
Illinois: the act’s official website refused the preparer’s requests, and the Internet Archive reset the connections. The cross-family checker’s session saved the enacted text from an Internet Archive capture of the official PDF (2026-09-08), and the cells were drafted from that saved text. The two model families read the act independently and agreed on the status of 13 of 15 cells. The approval date rests on the checker’s copy of the official bill status record, which the preparer could not open; it is given as a paraphrase, labelled as that copy.
Texts were read in official copies: the EU texts through the Publications Office’s repository, because EUR-Lex returned empty responses; California SB 53 from the Legislative Counsel’s database file, because its website refused requests; New York’s chapters in the Senate print and the Assembly’s bill records, not the session laws; the Chinese measures in the gov.cn policy library. Six web pages served changed bytes between retrievals; every quotation still matched.
Roles: one model family (Claude) drafted the cells, audited 50 of them in a fresh context and adjudicated. A model from another family (GPT, through Codex) checked 122 items, answering 85 of them blind before seeing the drafted answers. Where it disagreed, its status was applied. One cell it disputed (Executive Order 14110, Q06) was settled as not found after its second pass. For Illinois the roles were reversed: the checker read the act first, blind, and the drafter then wrote all fifteen cells without seeing its answers. The maintainer decided the remaining questions, including the four rules for “partly” and Illinois Q05 (partly, as for California’s identical wording). No person has checked the cells against the texts.
European Union
EU AI Act
Does not apply
Q03 finds a risk-management duty but no written framework document, so there is no document whose publication could be asked about. Technical documentation, which includes evaluation strategies for models with systemic risk, is kept for supply to the AI Office on request (Article 53(1)(a), Annex XI); it is recorded under Q08.
EU Code of Practice, Safety and Security
Stated
“Signatories will provide the AI Office with (unredacted) access to their Framework, and updates thereof, within five business days of either being confirmed.”
Measure 1.4 (PDF p. 10)
“Signatories will publish (e.g. via their websites) a summarised version of their Framework”
Measure 10.2, first sentence (PDF p. 28)
Note: Access for the AI Office within five business days of confirmation. Publication of a summarised version is conditioned 'if and insofar as necessary to assess and/or mitigate systemic risks', allows removals, and is not necessary where all the Signatory's models are 'similarly safe or safer models' (Appendix 2.2).
Inspect sources and checks: EU Code of Practice, Safety and Security, Q04 Framework published
United States: states
California SB 53
Stated
“A large frontier developer shall write, implement, comply with, and clearly and conspicuously publish on its internet website a frontier AI framework”
SEC. 2, Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(a), opening clause
“publish the modified frontier AI framework and a justification for that modification within 30 days.”
SEC. 2, Bus. & Prof. Code § 22757.12(b)(2)
Note: Publication on the developer’s website; a materially modified framework is published with a justification within 30 days. § 22757.12(f) permits redactions to protect trade secrets, cybersecurity, public safety or national security or to comply with law, with the character and justification of each redaction described and the unredacted information retained for five years. No provision requiring the framework itself to be submitted to a public authority was found.
Inspect sources and checks: California SB 53, Q04 Framework publishedNew York RAISE Act (As amended, Chapter 96 of 2026)
Stated
“A large frontier developer shall … write, implement, comply with, and clearly and conspicuously publish on … its internet website a frontier AI framework”
Bill text, § 2 (GBL § 1421(1) as re-added), p. 4, lines 14–16
Note: Publication on the developer’s website; a materially modified framework and a justification are published within thirty days (§ 1421(2)(b)). Redactions are permitted under § 1421(5). No duty to submit the framework to the office was found; § 1429 allows the office to consider requirements for “the transmission of frontier AI frameworks to the office”.
Inspect sources and checks: New York RAISE Act (As amended, Chapter 96 of 2026), Q04 Framework publishedNew York RAISE Act (As signed, Chapter 699 of 2025)
Stated
“Conspicuously publish a copy of the safety and security protocol with appropriate redactions”
Proposed GBL § 1421(1)(c)(i), p. 4, lines 18–19
“transmit a copy of such redacted safety and security protocol to the attorney general and division of homeland security and emergency services”
Proposed GBL § 1421(1)(c)(i), p. 4, lines 18–21
Note: Before deploying a frontier model. Publication with “appropriate redactions” (defined in § 1420(1)) and transmission of the redacted copy to the attorney general and the division of homeland security and emergency services; § 1421(1)(c)(ii) adds access upon request (see Q06). Material modifications after annual review are published in the same manner (§ 1421(3)).
Inspect sources and checks: New York RAISE Act (As signed, Chapter 699 of 2025), Q04 Framework publishedIllinois AI Safety Measures Act
Stated
“Beginning January 1, 2028, a large frontier developer … shall write, implement, comply with, and clearly and conspicuously publish on its website a frontier AI framework”
Section 10(a), opening clause, PDF pp. 4–5
“publish on its website the modified frontier AI framework and a justification for that modification within 30 days.”
Section 10(b)(2), PDF p. 6
Note: Publication on the developer's website; a materially modified framework is published with a justification within 30 days. Section 10(g) permits redactions to protect trade secrets, cybersecurity, public safety or national security or to comply with law, with the character and justification of each redaction described. No provision found requiring the framework itself to be submitted to the Agency. “…” in the quotation stands for the running footer at a PDF page break; no words of the act are omitted.
Inspect sources and checks: Illinois AI Safety Measures Act, Q04 Framework published
China
These measures address providers of services, not developers as such.
China, generative AI services (2023)
Does not apply
Q03 found no framework document whose publication or submission could be asked about. Article 17 algorithm filing is recorded under Q05 and Q08.
China, AI content labelling (2025)
Does not apply
Q03 found no framework document whose publication or submission could be asked about.
Revoked, or rescission announced
Kept as part of the record, each with its standing shown.
US Executive Order 14110
Does not apply
Q03 found no framework document whose publication or submission could be asked about.
US BIS AI diffusion rule
Does not apply
Q03 finds security measures but no written framework document on model risks. Records of data-centre security are to be made available to BIS on request (Supplement No. 10 to part 748, paragraph 11), and the third-party certification under paragraph 14(b) is made available to BIS.