Model cards compared
A cell records what a card states. It does not show that an evaluation was run as described or that a safeguard works, and a shared question does not make two cards’ answers equivalent.
What does each frontier developer’s published system card, model card or safety report disclose, on the same questions for every card? Each row is one card. Each column is one question, worded so that it fits every card. The questions are Selekoa’s; a card’s own terms appear only in quotation marks. A card is the developer’s own account of its model: what it states is recorded as stated, not as an independent finding.
Question Q03Framework cited
Does the card cite the developer’s own frontier safety framework, and which edition?
Criterion: The card names the developer’s framework (Responsible Scaling Policy, Preparedness Framework, Frontier Safety Framework, Risk Management Framework, Frontier AI Framework, Advanced AI Scaling Framework, Frontier Governance Framework, or a successor). Stated if it names the framework and identifies the edition (version number, date or a link to a dated edition); partly if it names the framework without an edition. Not applicable if the card predates every framework edition of its developer.
What the statuses mean
- Stated
- A passage of the card meets the question’s criterion as worded. The scope or condition is in the note.
- Stated, partly
- A passage has what the criterion asks for in a weaker or narrower form than the criterion’s own words (for example, an evaluation referred to without its outcome, or testers described without being named). The note says which part is missing.
- Not found in the recorded search
- No passage meeting the criterion was found. The cell lists the sections read, the terms searched and every passage set aside, with the reason. It does not show that the developer did not do the thing asked about, or did not disclose it elsewhere.
- Does not apply
- The question does not arise for this card, for the reason given (for example, the card predates any framework of its developer, so no framework determination can be asked about).
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.
Limits of this comparison
- A card is the developer’s account of its own model. A cell records what the card states. It does not show that an evaluation was run as described, that a safeguard works, or that anyone checked the result independently.
- Dangerous-capability evaluations are recorded at policy level only: whether an evaluation was run, its domain, the stated outcome and the threshold language. Methods, prompts, task contents and detailed results are not recorded.
- The table compares and does not rank. Rows are in a fixed order, by developer and then by date, and there are no scores or totals.
- Symbols are not to be summed. A row with many “stated” cells does not show that a developer disclosed more, and a shared question does not make two cards’ answers equivalent.
How we searched
The searches of 2 November 2026 covered releases dated 2023-01-01 to 2026-11-01 by the six developers whose frameworks are in Compare frameworks: Anthropic, Google DeepMind, Meta, Microsoft, OpenAI and xAI. They read each developer’s own index of cards where it has one (Anthropic’s system-card index, Google DeepMind’s model-card index, OpenAI’s Deployment Safety Hub), its repositories on GitHub and Hugging Face, its content hosts and the dataset’s own sources. Web searches were used only to find addresses. Every card located is listed in the pack’s inventory, about sixty in the population.
A card is a document the developer published as the system card, model card or safety report of a named model or model family, including addenda and updates published as cards. Technical reports, research papers, blog posts and product pages are not cards. Gemma, Gemini Robotics (with Gemini Robotics-ER 1.5, which outputs text), Phi and image-input models such as GPT-4V are in the population. Image, video, audio and embedding models, image-generation models, safety classifiers such as Llama Guard and Prompt Guard, screen-reading models and research checkpoints are outside it, and so is GPT-Rosalind-6, whose card says it uses GPT-6 Astra’s weights.
These twenty rows are the first batch. For each developer and calendar year from 2023 to 2026 they are the latest card of that year that reports the developer’s own evaluations. The collection’s rule, set by the maintainer on 2026-11-03, is wider: every card that cites the developer’s frontier safety framework or states a determination under it, and, for each developer, the latest card before its first framework edition. The other cards are to follow in batches of about eight.
Each card is dated as it prints its own date. A card that prints no date has no date here; a repository commit date is not a card date. Six cards show an earlier publication date on an index, publication or announcement page that has not yet been checked, and keep their own date until it is.
openai.com, x.ai, ai.meta.com and microsoft.ai refused direct retrieval of their web pages (HTTP 403 or 400). The cards’ PDF files on the developers’ content hosts were retrieved directly. The Internet Archive refused connections, so no archive copy was opened; a reviewer later found archive captures of eight cards by index search. On 2026-11-03 the address of Meta’s Code World Model Preparedness Report answered HTTP 403. Its quotations had matched the copy retrieved on 2026-11-02, which the reviewer retrieved again with the same checksum.
Five further documents were retrieved after the batch was drafted. The cross-family check of 2026-11-03 retrieved Meta’s Muse Spark Safety & Preparedness Report and OpenAI’s o3 Operator addendum; each is earlier than the card chosen for its year. Its second pass of the same day retrieved OpenAI’s Sora system card (dated 9 December 2024), xAI’s Grok-1 model card (no card date; it gives the model’s release as October 2023) and Meta’s Muse Spark Open model card (model release October 2026). None of the five is a row yet.
Every quotation was matched by machine against the retrieved card. A reviewer from a different model family checked a sample of 130 cells on 2026-11-03, 90 of them answered blind before comparison. The maintainer excluded six cells on chemical and biological evaluations from that check; they are marked “not cross-family checked”. The other 190 cells were checked within the drafting model family only. The maintainer decided the disagreements; one, on the GPT-4V release decision, went to a second pass, which kept the reviewer’s reading.
Anthropic
Claude 2 model card
revised 2023-11-21
Not found in the recorded search
- Read
- Whole text (16 pages), including references and the Claude 2.1 appendix.
- Terms searched
- “Responsible Scaling”, “RSP”, “ASL”, “AI Safety Level”, “scaling policy”, “framework”, “commitment”.
- Passages read and set aside
- Section 2, 'Ethical Considerations', PDF p. 2: The Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) is a usage policy, not a frontier safety framework.
Note: No passage naming a frontier safety framework was found. The card's update line (2023-11-21) postdates the publication the dataset records for RSP v1.0 (2023-09-19), so the question is asked.
Open the search record: Claude 2 model card, Q03 Framework citedModel Card Addendum: Claude 3.5 Haiku and Upgraded Claude 3.5 Sonnet
No printed dateCites RSP · v2.0: open that edition in Compare frameworks
Stated
“Both models underwent extensive safety evaluations, including comprehensive testing for potential risks in biological, cybersecurity, and autonomous behavior domains, in accordance with our Responsible Scaling Policy (RSP) [4].”
Section 1 'Introduction', PDF p. 1
“[4] Anthropic, “Responsible Scaling Policy.” October, 2024. https://assets.anthropic.com/m/ 24a47b00f10301cd/original/Anthropic-Responsible-Scaling-Policy-2024-10-15.pdf.”
References [4], PDF p. 13 (the address breaks across two lines)
Note: The card names the Responsible Scaling Policy and identifies the edition by a dated reference (October 2024) whose address carries the date 2024-10-15, which the dataset records for Responsible Scaling Policy v2.0.
Inspect sources and checks: Model Card Addendum: Claude 3.5 Haiku and Upgraded Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Q03 Framework citedSystem Card: Claude Opus 4.5
dated 2025-11 · revised 2025-12-05Cites RSP · v2.2: open that edition in Compare frameworks
Stated
“For more information on the requirements for these ASL Standards, please see the Responsible Scaling Policy”
Section 1.2.3 'AI Safety Level determination process', PDF p. 12 (hyperlinked words)
Note: The card names the Responsible Scaling Policy; the text gives no version, but the PDF's hyperlink on these words points to a policy PDF whose cover reads 'Version 2.2, Effective May 14, 2025' (Responsible Scaling Policy v2.2; identified by link annotation, maintainer decision 4a). The printed text does not name the edition.
Inspect sources and checks: System Card: Claude Opus 4.5, Q03 Framework citedSystem Card: Claude Haiku 5.5
dated 2026-10-07
Stated, partly
“we describe our assessment of Claude Haiku 5.5 for catastrophic risks relevant to our Responsible Scaling Policy (RSP)”
Section 2.1 'Introduction', PDF p. 11
Note: The card names the Responsible Scaling Policy without a version or date; its hyperlink points to the undated policy page. As context, not as the card's statement, the dataset records Responsible Scaling Policy v3.4 (effective 2026-07-08) as the edition published before the card's date. The card also names a 'Frontier Compliance Framework (FCF)', a compliance document not yet read and not recorded as a framework edition (maintainer decision 5a).
Inspect sources and checks: System Card: Claude Haiku 5.5, Q03 Framework cited
Google DeepMind
Gemini 3 Flash Model Card
dated 2025-12
Stated, partly
“did not reach any critical capability levels (CCLs) outlined in our Frontier Safety Framework”
Ethics and Content Safety, 'Frontier Safety Assessment', PDF p. 6 (printed p. 5)
Note: The card names the Frontier Safety Framework (also 'our FSF') without an edition, date or link to the framework. Context only, not the card's statement: the dataset records Frontier Safety Framework v3.0 (2025-09-22) as the edition published before the card's date. Search for the rest of the criterion: Whole card. Terms searched: “Frontier Safety Framework”, “FSF”, “version”, “edition”, “2025”.
Inspect sources and checks: Gemini 3 Flash Model Card, Q03 Framework citedGemini 4 Argon — Model Card
dated 2026-10Cites FSF · v3.1: open that edition in Compare frameworks
Stated
“In line with our Frontier Safety Framework (April 2026), we conducted critical capability assessments of Gemini 4 Argon”
Safety & Security, 'Frontier Safety Assessment', PDF p. 11 (printed p. 10)
Note: The card names the framework with the date 'April 2026' and links the v3.1 document (Frontier Safety Framework v3.1 in the dataset, version date 2026-04-17).
Inspect sources and checks: Gemini 4 Argon — Model Card, Q03 Framework cited
Meta
Llama 2 model card (MODEL_CARD.md, meta-llama/llama)
No printed date
Does not apply
The card predates every Meta framework edition in the dataset. Its text was added on 2023-07-18 and last revised on 2024-03-23; the earliest edition, the Frontier AI Framework, is dated 2025-02-03.
Llama 3.3 model card (MODEL_CARD.md, meta-llama/llama-models)
No printed date
Does not apply
The card predates every Meta framework edition in the dataset. It is dated by the model’s release on 2024-12-06; the earliest edition, the Frontier AI Framework, is dated 2025-02-03. Its revisions of 2024-12-09 and 2025-02-12 change the emissions table, and the text read names no framework.
Code World Model Preparedness Report
revised 2025-10-08
Stated, partly
“domains identified in our Frontier AI Framework (Meta AI, 2025a)”
Section 1 Introduction, PDF p. 1
Note: The report names Meta's Frontier AI Framework and cites it with the year 2025, an address and an access date of 2025-09-18, without a version number. As context only: the dataset records the Frontier AI Framework Version 1.1 (dated 2025-02-03) as the edition published before the report's date, and a revised expression under the same label captured from 2025-03-28.
Inspect sources and checks: Code World Model Preparedness Report, Q03 Framework citedMuse Spark 1.3 Evaluation Report
revised 2026-10-23
Stated, partly
“This report presents Muse Spark 1.3’s evaluation profile under the Meta Superintelligence Scaling Framework.”
Abstract page, PDF p. 2
Note: The report names the Meta Superintelligence Scaling Framework without a version or date. As context only: the dataset records the Advanced AI Scaling Framework Version 2 (2026-04-08) as the latest Meta edition published before the report's date; a document titled 'Meta Superintelligence Scaling Framework, Version 2.1 (October 2026)' was located at research.meta.ai and is not in the dataset.
Inspect sources and checks: Muse Spark 1.3 Evaluation Report, Q03 Framework cited
Microsoft
Phi-2 model card (README.md, microsoft/phi-2)
No printed date
Does not apply
The card predates every Microsoft framework edition in the dataset. Its earliest located commit is dated 2023-12-13; the earliest edition, the Frontier Governance Framework, is dated 2025-02-08. The revision read, of 2025-12-08, adds a data-summary link and names no framework.
Phi-4 model card (README.md, microsoft/phi-4)
No printed date
Does not apply
The card predates every Microsoft framework edition in the dataset. It prints a release date of 2024-12-12, and its earliest commit is dated 2024-12-11; the earliest edition, the Frontier Governance Framework, is dated 2025-02-08. The revision read, last changed on 2025-11-24, names no framework.
Phi-4-mini-flash-reasoning model card (README.md, microsoft/Phi-4-mini-flash-reasoning)
No printed date
Not found in the recorded search
- Read
- whole card (Markdown file, all sections).
- Terms searched
- “framework”, “Frontier AI Framework”, “Frontier Governance”, “Scaling Framework”, “policy”, “threshold”, “governance”, “Frontier Governance Framework”, “tracked”.
- Passages read and set aside
- Safety Evaluation and Red-Teaming: 'Azure AI Foundry’s Risk and Safety Evaluation framework' is an evaluation tool, not Microsoft's frontier framework. Safety Evaluation and Red-Teaming: 'Microsoft's responsible AI principles' are principles, not the frontier framework.
Note: The card postdates Microsoft's Frontier Governance Framework of February 2025 and does not name it.
Open the search record: Phi-4-mini-flash-reasoning model card (README.md, microsoft/Phi-4-mini-flash-reasoning), Q03 Framework citedMAI-Cyber-1.1-Flash model card
No printed date
Not found in the recorded search
- Read
- whole card (8 PDF pages).
- Terms searched
- “framework”, “Frontier AI Framework”, “Frontier Governance”, “Scaling Framework”, “policy”, “threshold”, “governance”, “Frontier Governance Framework”, “tracked”, “high-risk capabilit”.
- Passages read and set aside
- Section 1.2 Alignment approach, PDF p. 2: 'Microsoft Responsible AI Principles and Microsoft policies' are named; not the frontier framework.
Note: The card postdates Microsoft's Frontier Governance Framework editions of February 2025 and February 2026 and does not name the framework.
Open the search record: MAI-Cyber-1.1-Flash model card, Q03 Framework cited
OpenAI
GPT-4V(ision) System Card
dated 2023-09-25
Does not apply
The card predates every OpenAI framework edition in the dataset. It is dated 2023-09-25; the earliest edition, the Preparedness Framework (Beta), is dated 2023-12-18. The card names no framework.
o1 system card · 2024
revised 2024-12-19Cites Preparedness · Beta: open that edition in Compare frameworks
Stated
“We evaluated o1 in accordance with our Preparedness Framework.”
§5 Preparedness Framework Evaluations, PDF p. 15
“OpenAI, “Openai preparedness framework (beta).” openai-preparedness-framework-beta.pdf, 2023.”
References, [28], PDF p. 52
Note: The card names the Preparedness Framework and cites it as reference [28], titled “(beta)”, 2023, with the address cdn.openai.com/openai-preparedness-framework-beta.pdf; the words “Preparedness Framework” in §5 (PDF p. 15) also carry a hyperlink to that address. Edition: the Preparedness Framework (Beta).
Inspect sources and checks: o1 system card · 2024, Q03 Framework citedAddendum to GPT-5.2 System Card: GPT-5.2-Codex
dated 2025-12-18Cites Preparedness · Version 2: open that edition in Compare frameworks
Stated
“GPT-5.2-Codex was evaluated under our Preparedness Framework.”
§1 Introduction, PDF p. 4 (printed p. 3)
“Under our Preparedness Framework, High cybersecurity capability is defined”
§5.1.2 Cybersecurity, PDF p. 12 (printed p. 11)
Note: The card names the Preparedness Framework without a version number in its text. The word “Preparedness” in the second passage carries a hyperlink to cdn.openai.com/pdf/18a02b5d-6b67-4cec-ab64-68cdfbddebcd/preparedness-framework-v2.pdf, which identifies the edition: preparedness-v2.
Inspect sources and checks: Addendum to GPT-5.2 System Card: GPT-5.2-Codex, Q03 Framework citedAddendum to GPT-6 Luna System Card: October 29, 2026 Update
dated 2026-10-29Cites Preparedness · Version 2: open that edition in Compare frameworks
Stated
“Under our Preparedness Framework, we are treating GPT-6 Luna (October 29) as High capability in both Cybersecurity and Biological and Chemical domains.”
§8 Preparedness, PDF p. 13 (printed p. 12)
Note: The card names the Preparedness Framework without a version in its text. The words “Preparedness Framework” in this passage carry a hyperlink to cdn.openai.com/pdf/18a02b5d-6b67-4cec-ab64-68cdfbddebcd/preparedness-framework-v2.pdf, which identifies the edition: preparedness-v2. The card does not name the Frontier Governance Framework.
Inspect sources and checks: Addendum to GPT-6 Luna System Card: October 29, 2026 Update, Q03 Framework cited
xAI
Grok 4.1 Model Card
dated 2025-11-17
Stated, partly
“In line with our Risk Management Framework (RMF), we measure safety-relevant behaviors across three categories”
§1 Introduction, p. 1
“xAI. xai risk management framework, 2025.”
References, p. 6
Note: The card names xAI's Risk Management Framework; its reference gives the year 2025 only, with no version, full date or address. The RMF is not among the dataset's framework editions (open question). Context only, not the card's statement: the RMF served at data.x.ai prints 'Last updated: August 20, 2025'.
Inspect sources and checks: Grok 4.1 Model Card, Q03 Framework citedModel Card: Grok 4.7
dated 2026-09-21Cites FAIF · June 2026 edition: open that edition in Compare frameworks
Stated
“treated as safety-threshold evaluations under the xAI Frontier Artificial Intelligence Framework (FAIF)”
§7 Biological and chemical capabilities and safeguards, PDF p. 20 (printed p. 19)
“xAI Frontier Artificial Intelligence Framework (FAIF). xAI, June 30, 2026.”
References, item 16, PDF p. 29 (printed p. 28)
Note: The card names the framework and its reference gives the edition date June 30, 2026 (dataset faif-2026).
Inspect sources and checks: Model Card: Grok 4.7, Q03 Framework cited