OpenAI Frontier Governance Framework — May 2026 edition

Versions

OpenAI · Frontier Governance Framework: 1 recorded version, oldest first, published by OpenAI. A version is shown as replacing another only where a record says so. Date order alone never implies it.

1. 2026-05-28 · publishedMay 2026 edition (this version)

This version

Provisions in this version · 8 quoted

A limited selection of quoted provisions: what this edition says about thresholds, required actions, who decides and exceptions. It is not a full summary and says nothing about implementation. A “not found” record states which part of the edition was inspected. It is not a claim that the text was deleted.

• Threshold or triggerModels treated as crossing threshold when not ruled out“For example, out of an abundance of caution we have treated models as crossing a capability threshold in circumstances where we are unable to rule out that a new threshold had been reached, even in the absence of direct evidence that it has occurred.”PDF p. 8 (printed p. 06), §2.3 Systemic risk acceptance determination, first paragraph, final sentenceInspect claim & evidence ↗
• Threshold or triggerSystemic risk: over 50 fatalities or $1 billion“including risks that a model will materially contribute to greater than 50 fatalities or $1 billion of property damages or losses arising from a single incident.”PDF p. 5 (printed p. 03), §2.1 Systemic risk identification, first paragraph, second sentence (from “including”)Inspect claim & evidence ↗
• Required actionNo deployment above acceptable residual risk without mitigation“If residual risks associated with the model exceed acceptable risk levels, the model is not deployed unless additional mitigation measures are implemented that sufficiently minimize risk.”PDF p. 13 (printed p. 11), §2.5 Safety mitigations, first paragraph, third sentenceInspect claim & evidence ↗
• Who decidesMaterial FGF updates presented to two boards for oversight“Material updates will be presented to the Safety and Security Committee of the board of directors of the OpenAI Foundation and to the board of directors of OpenAI Ireland Limited for oversight”Informed: Safety and Security Committee of the OpenAI Foundation board of directors · Informed: Board of directors of OpenAI Ireland LimitedPDF p. 21 (printed p. 19), §7.1 Update and approval process, fourth (final) sentence, up to “for oversight”Inspect claim & evidence ↗
• Who decidesSafety Advisory Group and external experts inform risk acceptance“We document a justification for why the systemic risks stemming from the model are acceptable, including reasonably foreseeable conditions under which the justification may no longer hold, as informed by recommendations from OpenAI’s Safety Advisory Group and external experts, as available and appropriate.”Recommends: OpenAI Safety Advisory Group · Recommends: External experts (as available and appropriate)PDF p. 13 (printed p. 11), §2.5 Safety mitigations, second paragraph, second sentenceInspect claim & evidence ↗
• Who decidesLegal function oversees FGF updates and determines required ones“OpenAI’s Legal function, in collaboration with relevant internal stakeholders, will oversee the process for FGF updates, including determining which updates are required”Decides: OpenAI Legal function (which updates are required)PDF p. 21 (printed p. 19), §7.1 Update and approval process, second sentence, up to “required”Inspect claim & evidence ↗
• Who decidesWho may propose updates to the FGF“Updates to this FGF may be proposed by Open AI’s Safety Advisory Group, Head of Safety Systems, Head of Preparedness, Chief Information Security Officer, Chief Compliance Officer, General Counsel, or executive leadership.”Recommends: OpenAI Safety Advisory Group · Recommends: Head of Safety Systems · Recommends: Head of Preparedness · Recommends: Chief Information Security Officer · Recommends: Chief Compliance Officer · Recommends: General Counsel · Recommends: Executive leadershipPDF p. 21 (printed p. 19), §7.1 Update and approval process, first sentenceInspect claim & evidence ↗
• ExceptionAcceptable residual risk permits development, internal use, deployment“Where the residual risk falls within acceptable levels, taking into account appropriate safety margins, the model may be approved for continued development and internal use (where applicable), and may be deployed under this Frontier Governance Framework.”PDF p. 13 (printed p. 11), §2.5 Safety mitigations, second paragraph, first sentenceInspect claim & evidence ↗

Earliest version recorded here; no replacement is recorded.

Issue and authorship records

• Issued by: OpenAIOpenAI published Frontier Governance Framework May 2026 edition, identified by its publication date of 2026-05-28.2026-05-28 · publication · Stated in source · Supported Inspect claim & evidence ↗OpenAI: institution →

Documentary relations

Each relation is listed separately. Citing, crediting and reporting the use of a method are different acts, and none of them shows agreement or influence by itself.

Not recorded for this document: cites · cited by · explicitly credits · reports using a method from · method reported as used by · parts applied by · discusses · reports evaluation of. A missing record does not show that the relation does not exist.

Other recorded relations

• explicitly links itself toOpenAI’s Frontier Governance Framework (May 2026 edition) states that, under the EU General-Purpose AI Code of Practice, it serves as OpenAI’s publicly available summary of its Safety & Security Framework.2026-05-28 · publication · Stated in source · Supported Inspect claim & evidence ↗
• explicitly links itself toOpenAI's Frontier Governance Framework (May 2026 edition) states that, under California's TFAIA, it is OpenAI's Frontier AI Framework.2026-05-28 · publication · Stated in source · Supported Inspect claim & evidence ↗