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 Q12Duties apply from
From when do the duties compared here apply, where the instrument sets a date or period different from entry into force?
Criterion: A provision setting a separate application date or transition period for the duties compared here, including for models already on the market. Not found if no separate date is located; the cell does not infer one.
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
Stated
“Chapter III Section 4, Chapter V, Chapter VII and Chapter XII and Article 78 shall apply from 2 August 2025, with the exception of Article 101”
Article 113, third paragraph, point (b)
“It shall apply from 2 August 2026.”
Article 113, second paragraph
“shall take the necessary steps in order to comply with the obligations laid down in this Regulation by 2 August 2027”
Article 111(3)
Note: Chapter V duties apply from 2 August 2025. Article 101 (fines) is excepted from that date; read with the general date in the second paragraph, it applies from 2 August 2026. The text states no separate date for Article 101; this is a reading of the two quoted provisions. Under Article 111(3), providers of models placed on the market before 2 August 2025 have until 2 August 2027. Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, Article 1, point (40), amends Article 113 points (a) and (c) and adds point (d), but leaves point (b) unchanged.
Inspect sources and checks: EU AI Act, Q12 Duties apply fromEU Code of Practice, Safety and Security
Not found in the recorded search
- Read
- Whole text.
- Terms searched
- “apply from|applies from|application”, “transition|grace period|already (been )?placed on the market”, “2025”.
- Passages read and set aside
- Measure 1.1, last paragraph (PDF p. 7): Framework confirmation deadline per model (four weeks after notification under Article 52(1) AI Act and two weeks before placing on the market); a timing for one commitment, not an application date of the Code.
Note: No separate application date or transition period for the commitments was found, including for models already on the market.
Open the search record: EU Code of Practice, Safety and Security, Q12 Duties apply from
United States: states
California SB 53
Not found in the recorded search
- Read
- Whole chaptered text.
- Terms searched
- “operative”, “beginning”, “on or before”, “January 1”, “transition”, “existing frontier model”.
- Passages read and set aside
- SEC. 2, Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 22757.13(g)(1), 22757.14(a), 22757.14(d)(1): Dates of 1 January 2027 for reports by public bodies, not developer duties. SEC. 3, Gov. Code § 11546.8(k): Operative condition for the CalCompute section only.
Note: No separate application date or transition period for the developer duties was found. The duties to publish a transparency report are triggered by deployment, not by a date.
Open the search record: California SB 53, Q12 Duties apply fromNew York RAISE Act (As amended, Chapter 96 of 2026)
Not found in the recorded search
- Read
- Bill text §§ 1–5.
- Terms searched
- “take effect”, “beginning”, “January”, “transition”, “apply”.
- Passages read and set aside
- Bill text § 5 and § 3, p. 9: Effect provisions, recorded in Q11. GBL § 1422(7)(a) as re-added, p. 6: “Beginning January first, two thousand twenty-eight” sets the office’s annual report, not developer duties.
Note: No application date or transition period for the developer duties separate from the effect provisions in Q11 was found. The transparency-report duty is triggered by deployment.
Open the search record: New York RAISE Act (As amended, Chapter 96 of 2026), Q12 Duties apply fromNew York RAISE Act (As signed, Chapter 699 of 2025)
Not found in the recorded search
- Read
- Whole print S6953-B, pp. 1–5.
- Terms searched
- “take effect”, “effective”, “apply”, “transition”, “before deploying”.
- Passages read and set aside
- Proposed GBL § 1424, p. 5: Territorial scope, not an application date. Bill § 3, p. 5: General effect provision, recorded in Q11.
Note: No separate application date or transition period for the duties was found. The § 1421(1) duties are triggered by deployment (“Before deploying a frontier model”), not by a date.
Open the search record: New York RAISE Act (As signed, Chapter 699 of 2025), Q12 Duties apply fromIllinois 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
“Beginning on January 1, 2028 or 90 days after a developer first qualifies as a large frontier developer, whichever is later”
Section 10(d), first sentence, PDF p. 8
Note: The framework duty applies from 1 January 2028 and the audit duty from 1 January 2028 or 90 days after first qualifying, whichever is later; both fall later than the act's effect date of 1 January 2027 (Section 99). Section 18(a)'s disclosure statement applies “beginning January 1, 2027”, the same day as the act. The transparency report, incident reporting and whistleblower duties set no date of their own. No transitional provision for models already deployed was found; the transparency report is triggered by deployment. “…” 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, Q12 Duties apply from
China
These measures address providers of services, not developers as such.
China, generative AI services (2023)
Not found in the recorded search
- Read
- Order No. 15 and Articles 1–24, with attention to Chapter 5 (附则, Articles 22–24).
- Terms searched
- “过渡|之前|已经|存量”, “起施行”, “日起”.
- Passages read and set aside
- Order No. 15, first paragraph: '现予公布，自2023年8月15日起施行' repeats the Article 24 effective date; not a separate application date.
Note: No separate application date or transition period, including for services already offered, was found.
Open the search record: China, generative AI services (2023), Q12 Duties apply fromChina, AI content labelling (2025)
Not found in the recorded search
- Read
- Notice and Articles 1–14 in full.
- Terms searched
- “过渡|之前|已经|存量”, “起施行”, “日起”.
Note: No separate application date or transition period was found.
Open the search record: China, AI content labelling (2025), Q12 Duties apply from
Revoked, or rescission announced
Kept as part of the record, each with its standing shown.
US Executive Order 14110
Not found in the recorded search
- Read
- Whole cached text of the Federal Register printing (88 FR 75191–75226), with close reading of Secs. 3, 4.1, 4.2, 12 and 13 and the signature block.
- Terms searched
- “Within 90 days”, “date of this order”, “ongoing basis”.
- Passages read and set aside
- Sec. 4.2(a), 88 FR 75197: “Within 90 days of the date of this order” is the period for the Secretary of Commerce to require reporting; not an application date for companies’ duties.
Note: No provision setting a date from which companies’ reporting duties apply was found. The 90-day period in Sec. 4.2(a) is set for the Secretary of Commerce to require the reporting and is set aside.
Open the search record: US Executive Order 14110, Q12 Duties apply fromUS BIS AI diffusion rule
Stated
“exporters, reexporters, and transferors are not required to comply with the changes made in this rule until May 15, 2025”
DATES, 90 FR 4544
“paragraphs 14, 15, and 18 of supplement no. 10 to part 748 have a delayed compliance date of January 15, 2026”
DATES, 90 FR 4544
Note: Compliance dates separate from the effective date: 15 May 2025 generally; 15 January 2026 for the data-centre security, AI-cybersecurity and personnel-security paragraphs that also apply to model-weight storage. The BIS announcement of 13 May 2025 is recorded under Q11 and Q14.
Inspect sources and checks: US BIS AI diffusion rule, Q12 Duties apply from