Document · Framework version Meta Advanced AI Scaling Framework — Version 2 Version 2 of Meta’s frontier framework, renamed from the Frontier AI Framework to the Advanced AI Scaling Framework. Its stated obligations describe the document, not implementation.
Issued by Meta ↗ Authors credited No authorship claim recorded yet. The source record lists Meta. Dates Published 2026-04-08 issue evidence ↗ Publication date from Meta’s dated announcement of April 8, 2026; the framework’s own change log dates the version April 7, 2026.
Exact source Copy link to this page
See this document’s connections in the explorer → Versions Meta · Frontier AI / Advanced AI Scaling Framework: 2 recorded versions, oldest first, published by Meta. A version is shown as replacing another only where a record says so. Date order alone never implies it.
2025-02-03 · published v1.1 2026-04-08 · published v2.0 (this version) Read the full document history of these frameworks → This version Replaces Meta’s Advanced AI Scaling Framework, Version 2, replaces the Frontier AI Framework, Version 1.1, in the publisher’s documented framework sequence. 2026-04-08 · publication · Stated in source · Supported Inspect claim & evidence ↗ Meta FAF · v1.1: document page → Official changelog Provision · Who decides: Chief AI Officer or Director of Alignment and Risk decides v2 names the Chief AI Officer or the Director of Alignment and Risk as determining whether to request further testing or information, require additional mitigations or improvements, or approve the model for deployment, whereas v1.1 assigns these choices to 'a leadership team' and refers to approval for release. 2026-04-08 · publication · Stated in source · Supported Inspect claim & evidence ↗ Official changelog Provision · Required action: Critical: continue development only with validated safeguards v2 states that, should either critical-threshold scenario arise, development continues only if risk assessments are complete and safeguards are defined, implemented and validated to reduce risk to the moderate or lower threshold, whereas v1.1 states that Meta will stop development and implement the Table 1 measures if a frontier AI reaches the critical threshold and cannot be mitigated. 2026-04-08 · publication · Stated in source · Supported Inspect claim & evidence ↗ Official changelog Provision · Threshold or trigger: Critical risk threshold (development contribution or unmitigable unique enablement) v2's critical threshold has two alternative conditions (continued development could substantially contribute to any threat scenario, or the model could uniquely enable a threat scenario and the risk cannot be mitigated in the proposed deployment context), whereas v1.1's Table 1 critical row states only the uniquely-enable condition (the model would uniquely enable execution of at least one identified threat scenario and that risk cannot be mitigated in the proposed deployment context). 2026-04-08 · publication · Stated in source · Supported Inspect claim & evidence ↗ Official changelog Provision · Required action: High: deploy only with validated mitigations v2’s high-threshold measure, labelled Deploy with mitigations, is to proceed with deployment of the Frontier AI only if sufficient mitigations are defined, implemented and validated to reduce risk to that of a moderate or lower model, whereas v1.1 states that a frontier AI at the high risk threshold will not be released externally, and its Table 1 pairs the high threshold’s Do not release label with the measure of implementing mitigations to reduce risk to moderate levels. 2026-04-08 · publication · Stated in source · Supported Inspect claim & evidence ↗ Inferred document comparison Provision · Threshold or trigger: High risk threshold (deployment could substantially contribute) v2's high threshold applies where deployment of the Frontier AI could substantially contribute to any threat scenario associated with a catastrophic outcome, whereas v1.1's applies where the model provides significant uplift towards execution of a threat scenario but does not enable execution of any threat scenario identified as potentially sufficient to produce a catastrophic outcome. 2026-04-08 · publication · Inferred · Supported Inspect claim & evidence ↗ Inferred document comparison Provision · Threshold or trigger: Moderate or lower risk threshold (no substantial contribution) v2.0's lowest threshold, 'Moderate or lower' with the measure label 'Deploy', applies where the Frontier AI shows relevant capabilities but could not substantially contribute to any threat scenario associated with a catastrophic outcome across plausible deployment and development scenarios, whereas v1.1's 'Moderate' threshold, with the measure label 'Release', applies where the model would not provide significant uplift towards execution of a threat scenario. 2026-04-08 · publication · Inferred · Supported Inspect claim & evidence ↗ Provisions in this version · 9 quoted · 2 not found 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 trigger Critical risk threshold (development contribution or unmitigable unique enablement) “Moreover, if continued development of the model could substantially contribute to any threat scenario, or if the model could uniquely enable a threat scenario and the risk cannot be mitigated in the proposed deployment context, the model meets the critical risk threshold.” PDF p. 26 (printed p. 26), §4.2 Evaluation and mitigation, final sentence of the paragraph continued from PDF p. 25 Inspect claim & evidence ↗ Threshold or trigger High risk threshold (deployment could substantially contribute) “Deployment of the Frontier AI could substantially contribute to any threat scenario associated with a catastrophic outcome.” PDF p. 15 (printed p. 15), §3.3 Risk Thresholds, Table 1: Risk Thresholds for Frontier AI, High row, Risk Threshold column Inspect claim & evidence ↗ Threshold or trigger Moderate or lower risk threshold (no substantial contribution) “The Frontier AI shows relevant capabilities, but could not substantially contribute to any threat scenario associated with a catastrophic outcome, across plausible deployment and development scenarios.” PDF p. 15 (printed p. 15), §3.3 Risk Thresholds, Table 1: Risk Thresholds for Frontier AI, 'Moderate or lower' row, Risk Threshold column Inspect claim & evidence ↗ Required action Critical: continue development only with validated safeguards “Should either scenario arise, we will only continue development of the Frontier AI if our risk assessments are complete and safeguards are defined, implemented and validated to reduce risk to the moderate or lower risk threshold.” PDF p. 17 (printed p. 17), §3.3 Risk Thresholds, final sentence of the paragraph beginning on PDF p. 16 ('First, a Frontier AI meets the critical risk threshold…') Inspect claim & evidence ↗ Required action High: deploy only with validated mitigations “Proceed with deployment of the Frontier AI only if sufficient mitigations are defined, implemented and validated to reduce risk to that of a moderate or lower model.” PDF p. 15 (printed p. 15), §3.3 Risk Thresholds, Table 1, High row, Measures column, under the label 'Deploy with mitigations' Inspect claim & evidence ↗ Who decides Deployment follows consultation and Chief AI Officer approval “with model deployment following appropriate consultation with relevant teams and with the approval of the Chief AI Officer.” Decides: Chief AI Officer · Consulted: Relevant teams PDF p. 10 (printed p. 10), §2.3 Accountability, second paragraph, second sentence (closing clause) Inspect claim & evidence ↗ Who decides Chief AI Officer or Director of Alignment and Risk decides “Informed by this analysis, the Chief AI Officer or the Director of Alignment and Risk will determine whether to request further testing or information, require additional mitigations or improvements, or approve the model for deployment.” Decides: Chief AI Officer · Decides: Director of Alignment and Risk PDF p. 7 (printed p. 7), §2.1.3 Decide, 'Make a decision on deployment', second sentence Inspect claim & evidence ↗ Who decides Chief AI Officer and Director assign risk threshold “Based on this pre-mitigation risk assessment, the Chief AI Officer and Director of Alignment and Risk2 will assign a risk threshold.” Decides: Chief AI Officer · Decides: Director of Alignment and Risk PDF p. 6 (printed p. 6), §2.1.2 Evaluate and Mitigate, 'Evaluate for performance and safety', paragraph beginning 'These assessments typically use a version of the Frontier AI', second sentence Inspect claim & evidence ↗ Exception High-threshold model deployed externally only with strong mitigation evidence “In the case where pre-mitigation testing suggests that a model has crossed the high risk threshold, we will not deploy the model externally unless we have strong additional evidence that mitigations are sufficiently robust to adversarial attacks that the fully mitigated model is reduced to moderate or lower levels.” PDF p. 32 (printed p. 32), §4.2.2 Chemical and Biological Risks, 'Mitigation strategies', third paragraph Inspect claim & evidence ↗ Not found in the inspected text Pause development to investigate remaining barriers Inspected: PDF pp. 1–44, all sections, including Table 1 (PDF p. 15), §3.3 Risk Thresholds (PDF pp. 15–17), §4.2 Evaluation and mitigation (PDF pp. 25–38) and Appendix II – Change log (PDF p. 44) Inspect claim & evidence ↗ Not found in the inspected text Senior-level decision-makers approve final uplift assessment Inspected: PDF pp. 1–44, all sections, footnotes and Appendix II – Change log Inspect claim & evidence ↗ Issue and authorship records Issued by: Meta Meta published Version 2 of its framework, renamed the Advanced AI Scaling Framework, identified by its announcement date of 2026-04-08. 2026-04-08 · publication · Stated in source · Supported Inspect claim & evidence ↗ Meta: 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 · applies parts of · parts applied by · discusses · reports evaluation of. A missing record does not show that the relation does not exist.