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 Q04Link to framework
Does the card link or refer the reader to the framework document itself?
Criterion: A hyperlink, address or bibliographic reference to the framework document in the card. Partly if it refers to the framework as a document without an address or reference. Not applicable if Q03 is not applicable.
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, including the reference list (PDF pp. 12–14).
- Terms searched
- “Responsible Scaling”, “RSP”, “policy”, “framework”.
- Passages read and set aside
- References [11], PDF p. 12: Reference to the Acceptable Use Policy, not a frontier safety framework.
Note: No framework is named (Q03), and no link or reference to a framework document was found.
Open the search record: Claude 2 model card, Q04 Link to frameworkModel 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
“[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 gives a bibliographic reference with the address of the policy document.
Inspect sources and checks: Model Card Addendum: Claude 3.5 Haiku and Upgraded Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Q04 Link to frameworkSystem 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 refers the reader to the policy; the words carry a hyperlink to the RSP v2.2 PDF (also on PDF p. 117). The address is not printed in the text.
Inspect sources and checks: System Card: Claude Opus 4.5, Q04 Link to frameworkSystem Card: Claude Haiku 5.5
dated 2026-10-07
Stated
“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 (hyperlinked words)
Note: The words 'Responsible Scaling Policy (RSP)' carry a hyperlink to https://www.anthropic.com/responsible-scaling-policy, an undated page; the address is not printed in the text.
Inspect sources and checks: System Card: Claude Haiku 5.5, Q04 Link to framework
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 refers to the framework as a document ('outlined in') without an address or reference. The paragraph's hyperlink (PDF link annotation, p. 6) points to the Gemini 3 Pro Frontier Safety Framework Report (storage.googleapis.com/deepmind-media/gemini/gemini_3_pro_fsf_report.pdf), a model report, not the framework. Search for the rest of the criterion: Whole card and its PDF link annotations (17 links). Terms searched: “Frontier Safety Framework”, “FSF”, “frontier-safety”, “http”. Passages read and not counted: PDF link annotation, p. 6: Target is the Gemini 3 Pro Frontier Safety Framework Report, not the framework document.
Inspect sources and checks: Gemini 3 Flash Model Card, Q04 Link to frameworkGemini 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 PDF's link annotation on p. 11 points to storage.googleapis.com/deepmind-media/DeepMind.com/Blog/strengthening-our-frontier-safety-framework/frontier-safety-framework_3-1.pdf; a link on p. 9 points to deepmind.google/frontier-safety/ (the framework versions page).
Inspect sources and checks: Gemini 4 Argon — Model Card, Q04 Link to framework
Meta
Llama 2 model card (MODEL_CARD.md, meta-llama/llama)
No printed date
Does not apply
The card predates every framework edition of its developer in the dataset, so it has no framework to link to or to make a determination under.
Llama 3.3 model card (MODEL_CARD.md, meta-llama/llama-models)
No printed date
Does not apply
The card predates every framework edition of its developer in the dataset, so it has no framework to link to or to make a determination under.
Code World Model Preparedness Report
revised 2025-10-08
Stated
“Meta AI. Meta frontier ai framework. https://ai.meta.com/static-resource/meta-frontier-ai-framework, 2025a. Accessed: 2025-09-18.”
References, PDF p. 15
Note: The reference list gives the framework's address and an access date.
Inspect sources and checks: Code World Model Preparedness Report, Q04 Link to frameworkMuse Spark 1.3 Evaluation Report
revised 2026-10-23
Stated, partly
“the Meta Superintelligence Scaling Framework, which sets forth requirements for identifying, assessing, and mitigating catastrophic risks”
Section 1.2 Governance, PDF p. 11 (printed p. 10)
Note: The report refers to the framework as a document; no address or reference-list entry for it was found. Search for the rest of the criterion: Contents; section 1; references. Terms searched: “Scaling Framework”, “static”, “http”, “Meta Superintelligence Labs”. Passages read and not counted: References: The reference list cites the Muse Spark Safety & Preparedness Report with an address but has no entry for the framework.
Inspect sources and checks: Muse Spark 1.3 Evaluation Report, Q04 Link to framework
Microsoft
Phi-2 model card (README.md, microsoft/phi-2)
No printed date
Does not apply
The card predates every framework edition of its developer in the dataset, so it has no framework to link to or to make a determination under.
Phi-4 model card (README.md, microsoft/phi-4)
No printed date
Does not apply
The card predates every framework edition of its developer in the dataset, so it has no framework to link to or to make a determination under.
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 Governance”, “http”, “aka.ms”.
Note: No link or reference to a framework document was found. The search is recorded below.
Open the search record: Phi-4-mini-flash-reasoning model card (README.md, microsoft/Phi-4-mini-flash-reasoning), Q04 Link to frameworkMAI-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 Governance”, “http”, “aka.ms”.
Note: No link or reference to a framework document was found. The search is recorded below.
Open the search record: MAI-Cyber-1.1-Flash model card, Q04 Link to framework
OpenAI
GPT-4V(ision) System Card
dated 2023-09-25
Does not apply
The card predates every framework edition of its developer in the dataset, so it has no framework to link to or to make a determination under.
o1 system card · 2024
revised 2024-12-19Cites Preparedness · Beta: open that edition in Compare frameworks
Stated
“OpenAI, “Openai preparedness framework (beta).”
References, [28], PDF p. 52
Note: Bibliographic reference to the framework, with the printed address https://cdn.openai.com/openai-preparedness-framework-beta.pdf (accessed 2024-09-11; the text layer separates the address prefix from the rest of the address). The phrase “The Preparedness Framework is a living document” in §5 (PDF p. 15) carries a hyperlink to the same PDF.
Inspect sources and checks: o1 system card · 2024, Q04 Link to frameworkAddendum to GPT-5.2 System Card: GPT-5.2-Codex
dated 2025-12-18Cites Preparedness · Version 2: open that edition in Compare frameworks
Stated
“Under our Preparedness Framework, High cybersecurity capability is defined”
§5.1.2 Cybersecurity, PDF p. 12 (printed p. 11)
“GPT-5.2-Codex frontier capabilities are assessed under the Preparedness Framework.”
§5 Preparedness, PDF p. 8 (printed p. 7)
Note: Hyperlinks (PDF link annotations): on PDF p. 12 to the Preparedness Framework Version 2 PDF; on PDF p. 8 to openai.com/index/updating-our-preparedness-framework/ (OpenAI’s announcement of the updated framework). The reference list does not cite the framework.
Inspect sources and checks: Addendum to GPT-5.2 System Card: GPT-5.2-Codex, Q04 Link to frameworkAddendum 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: Hyperlink (PDF link annotation) on “Preparedness Framework,” to the Preparedness Framework Version 2 PDF. No bibliographic reference to the framework.
Inspect sources and checks: Addendum to GPT-6 Luna System Card: October 29, 2026 Update, Q04 Link to framework
xAI
Grok 4.1 Model Card
dated 2025-11-17
Stated
“xAI. xai risk management framework, 2025.”
References, p. 6
Note: A bibliographic reference to the framework (author, title, year), cited in §2 as '[xAI, 2025]'; it gives no address. The PDF's only link annotation points to the Grok 4 model card.
Inspect sources and checks: Grok 4.1 Model Card, Q04 Link to frameworkModel Card: Grok 4.7
dated 2026-09-21Cites FAIF · June 2026 edition: open that edition in Compare frameworks
Stated
“xAI Frontier Artificial Intelligence Framework (FAIF). xAI, June 30, 2026.”
References, item 16, PDF p. 29 (printed p. 28)
Note: The reference carries an address (media.x.ai/v1/website/xai-frontier-artificial-intelligence-framework-30-june-2026-99c40684.pdf), also as a link annotation. That address returned HTTP 404 on 2026-11-02; the dataset's faif-2026 record names it as the file formerly served for the June 2026 edition.
Inspect sources and checks: Model Card: Grok 4.7, Q04 Link to framework