Microsoft Frontier Governance Framework — February 2026

Versions

Microsoft · Frontier Governance Framework: 2 recorded versions, oldest first, published by Microsoft. A version is shown as replacing another only where a record says so. Date order alone never implies it.

1. 2025-02 · publishedFeb 2025 (Version 1)
2. 2026-02 · revisedFeb 2026 (this version)

This version

• ReplacesMicrosoft’s February 2026 Frontier Governance Framework replaces the February 2025 first edition in the publisher’s documented framework sequence.2026-02 · revision · Stated in source · Supported Inspect claim & evidence ↗Microsoft FGF · Feb 2025: document page →

Provisions in this version · 9 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 triggerCBRN weapons High risk-level capability thresholds“The model provides a meaningful uplift to an expert’s (PhD level education in related fields) ability to develop and deliver a novel CBRN threat. The model provides a meaningful uplift to a medium-skilled actor’s (e.g., STEM education) ability to develop and deliver a known CBRN threat.”PDF p. 12 (printed p. 11), Appendix I – Capability thresholds, CBRN weapons table, High row, Capability threshold column (both statements)Inspect claim & evidence ↗
• Required actionHigh or critical risk: review and mitigations before deployment“Models assessed as having a high or critical risk are subject to further review and safety and security mitigations prior to deployment.”PDF p. 7 (printed p. 6), §3 Evaluation and assessment, Deeper capability assessment, paragraph 'Pre-mitigation capability assessment', third sentenceInspect claim & evidence ↗
• Required actionHigh-risk models: security against cybercrime groups and insiders“Models posing high-risk on one or more tracked high-risk capability will be subject to security measures protective against most cybercrime groups and insider threats.”PDF p. 8 (printed p. 7), §4 Mitigations, Security measures, fourth paragraph, first sentenceInspect claim & evidence ↗
• Required actionIncident response and reports for serious or critical incidents“Where we or others identify serious or critical incidents that may pose public safety or national security risks, we operationalize incident response policies and processes, conduct investigations, provide reports to regulatory authorities and impacted customers as appropriate”PDF p. 9 (printed p. 8), §4 Mitigations, Safety mitigations, 'Monitoring, response, and remediation' bullet, fourth sentence (first part)Inspect claim & evidence ↗
• Required actionPause development and deployment if risk cannot be mitigated“If, during the implementation of this framework, we identify a risk we cannot sufficiently mitigate, we will pause development and deployment until the point at which mitigation practices evolve to meet the risk.”PDF p. 9 (printed p. 8), §4 Mitigations, Safety mitigations, paragraph 'Post-mitigation capability assessment and safety buffer', second sentenceInspect claim & evidence ↗
• Who decidesExecutive Officers make final deployment decision“The Executive Officers (or their delegates) will make the final decision on whether to approve the recommendation for secure and trustworthy deployment.”Decides: Executive Officers responsible for Microsoft’s AI governance program (or their delegates)PDF p. 10 (printed p. 9), §5 Governance, Risk-informed deployment decision, second paragraph, first sentenceInspect claim & evidence ↗
• Who decidesIndependent internal experts decide on external evaluators“The decision to involve qualified and expert external actors that meet relevant security standards, including those with domain-specific expertise, is made by internal experts who are independent from the model development team.”Decides: Internal experts independent from the model development teamPDF p. 7 (printed p. 6), §3 Evaluation and assessment, Deeper capability assessment, 'Capability evaluation' bullet, fifth sentenceInspect claim & evidence ↗
• Who decidesChief Responsible AI Officer reviews updates before adoption“Any updates to our practices will be reviewed by Microsoft’s Chief Responsible AI Officer prior to their adoption.”Consulted: Chief Responsible AI OfficerPDF p. 10 (printed p. 9), §5 Governance, 'Updates to this framework', fourth sentenceInspect claim & evidence ↗
• ExceptionLow or medium risk models may be deployed“Models assessed as posing low or medium risk may be deployed with appropriate safeguards as outlined below.”PDF p. 7 (printed p. 6), §3 Evaluation and assessment, Deeper capability assessment, paragraph 'Pre-mitigation capability assessment', second sentenceInspect claim & evidence ↗

Coverage gap. No change from the previous edition is recorded yet. That does not mean nothing changed.

Issue and authorship records

• Issued by: MicrosoftMicrosoft published a February 2026 edition of its Frontier Governance Framework, identified by its version date of February 2026.2026-02 · revision · Stated in source · Supported Inspect claim & evidence ↗Microsoft: 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 toMicrosoft’s Frontier Governance Framework (February 2026) describes itself in its change log as a one-year update following finalisation of the EU Code of Practice for General Purpose AI, the New York RAISE Act and California’s Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act.2026-02 · revision · Stated in source · Supported Inspect claim & evidence ↗
• explicitly links itself toMicrosoft’s Frontier Governance Framework, February 2026 edition, states that the framework has its genesis in the voluntary Frontier AI Safety Commitments that Microsoft and fifteen other AI labs made in May 2024.2026-02 · revision · Stated in source · Supported Inspect claim & evidence ↗
• explicitly links itself toMicrosoft's Frontier Governance Framework (February 2026) explicitly references California's TFAIA in two places. Its change log describes the edition as a one-year update following finalisation of the EU GPAI Code of Practice, New York's RAISE Act and TFAIA. Its leading-indicator assessment is run on any model in scope for frontier-model requirements under applicable laws, and it names TFAIA among those laws.2026-02 · revision · Stated in source · Supported Inspect claim & evidence ↗