Meta Frontier AI Framework — Version 1.1

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.

1. 2025-02-03 · publishedv1.1 (this version)
2. 2026-04-08 · publishedv2.0

This version

• Replaced byMeta’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 AASF · v2: document page →
• Official changelogChange recorded in v2.0v2 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 ↗Meta AASF · v2: document page →
• Official changelogChange recorded in v2.0v2 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 ↗Meta AASF · v2: document page →
• Official changelogChange recorded in v2.0v2'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 ↗Meta AASF · v2: document page →
• Official changelogChange recorded in v2.0v2’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 ↗Meta AASF · v2: document page →
• Inferred document comparisonChange recorded in v2.0v2'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 ↗Meta AASF · v2: document page →
• Inferred document comparisonChange recorded in v2.0v2.0'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 ↗Meta AASF · v2: document page →

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 triggerCritical risk threshold (unique, unmitigable enablement)“The model would uniquely enable the execution of at least one of the threat scenarios that have been identified as potentially sufficient to produce a catastrophic outcome and that risk cannot be mitigated in the proposed deployment context.”PDF p. 13 (printed p. 13), §3.3 Risk thresholds, Table 1: Risk thresholds for frontier AI, Critical row, Risk Threshold column (text below the measure label 'Stop development')Inspect claim & evidence ↗
• Threshold or triggerHigh risk threshold (significant uplift without enabling execution)“The model provides significant uplift towards execution of a threat scenario (i.e. significantly enhances performance on key capabilities or tasks needed to produce a catastrophic outcome) but does not enable execution of any threat scenario that has been identified as potentially sufficient to produce a catastrophic outcome.”PDF p. 13 (printed p. 13), §3.3 Risk thresholds, Table 1: Risk thresholds for frontier AI, High row, Risk Threshold column (text below the measure label 'Do not release')Inspect claim & evidence ↗
• Threshold or triggerModerate risk threshold (no significant uplift)“The model would not provide significant uplift towards execution of a threat scenario.”PDF p. 13 (printed p. 13), §3.3 Risk thresholds, Table 1: Risk thresholds for frontier AI, Moderate row, Risk Threshold column (text below the measure label 'Release')Inspect claim & evidence ↗
• Required actionStop development at unmitigable critical risk“If a frontier AI is assessed to have reached the critical risk threshold and cannot be mitigated, we will stop development and implement the measures outlined in Table 1.”PDF p. 12 (printed p. 12), §3.3 Risk thresholds, first paragraph, third sentenceInspect claim & evidence ↗
• Required actionPause development to investigate remaining barriers“If a model appears to uniquely enable the execution of a threat scenario we will pause development while we investigate whether barriers to realizing the catastrophic outcome remain.”PDF p. 13 (printed p. 13), §3.3 Risk thresholds, Table 1: Risk thresholds for frontier AI, Critical row, Measures column, first bullet, second sentenceInspect claim & evidence ↗
• Required actionNo external release at high risk threshold“If the results of our evaluations indicate that a frontier AI has a “high” risk threshold by providing significant uplift towards realization of a catastrophic outcome we will not release the frontier AI externally.”PDF p. 17 (printed p. 17), §4.2 Evaluation and mitigation, paragraph beginning 'We may take into account monetary costs', second sentenceInspect claim & evidence ↗
• Who decidesLeadership team decides on release“Informed by this analysis, a leadership team will either request further testing or information, require additional mitigations or improvements, or they will approve the model for release.”Decides: leadership teamPDF p. 8 (printed p. 8), §2.1.3 Decide, 'Make a decision on release', second sentenceInspect claim & evidence ↗
• Who decidesSenior-level decision-makers approve final uplift assessment“A final assessment of uplift is approved by senior-level decision-makers through our AI Risk process (see Section 2.1).”Decides: Senior-level decision-makers (AI Risk process)PDF p. 13 (printed p. 13), §3.3 Risk thresholds, footnote 7 (attached to Table 1, High row, Risk Threshold column), third and final sentenceInspect claim & evidence ↗

Issue and authorship records

• Issued by: MetaMeta published its Frontier AI Framework, Version 1.1, identified by its announcement date of 2025-02-03.2025-02-03 · 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.

Other recorded relations

• explicitly links itself toMeta’s Frontier AI Framework v1.1 opens its scope section by stating that, in line with the Frontier AI Safety Commitments, which it says Meta signed in May 2024, the framework relates to Meta’s forthcoming most advanced models and systems.2025-02-03 · publication · Stated in source · Supported Inspect claim & evidence ↗