Versions OpenAI · Preparedness Framework: 2 recorded versions, oldest first, published by OpenAI. A version is shown as replacing another only where a record says so. Date order alone never implies it.
2023-12-18 · published Beta 2025-04-15 · revised Version 2 (this version) Read the full document history of these frameworks → This version Unresolved Replaces Preparedness Framework Version 2 replaces Beta in the publisher’s documented framework version sequence. 2025-04-15 · revision · Inferred · Unresolved Inspect claim & evidence ↗ Preparedness · Beta: document page → Official changelog Recorded change from the previous version Preparedness Version 2 moves handling of persuasion risks outside the Preparedness Framework. 2025-04-15 · revision · Stated in source · Supported Inspect claim & evidence ↗ Official changelog Recorded change from the previous version Preparedness Version 2 introduces Research Categories for capabilities requiring further threat-model and measurement work. 2025-04-15 · revision · Stated in source · Supported Inspect claim & evidence ↗ Official changelog Recorded change from the previous version Preparedness Version 2 removes the terms “low” and “medium” while defining High and Critical capability thresholds. 2025-04-15 · revision · Stated in source · Supported Inspect claim & evidence ↗ Inferred document comparison Provision · Required action: Critical capability requires safeguards during development Version 2 states that if a model under development reaches a Critical capability threshold, safeguards are also required to sufficiently minimize the associated risks during development, irrespective of deployment plans; the Beta states that only models with a post-mitigation score of “high” or below can be developed further. 2025-04-15 · revision · Inferred · Supported Inspect claim & evidence ↗ Inferred document comparison Provision · Who decides: Leadership approves or rejects SAG recommendations; SSC oversight Version 2’s passage states that OpenAI Leadership can approve or reject the SAG’s recommendations and that the Board’s Safety and Security Committee provides oversight of these decisions; the Beta’s passage names OpenAI Leadership as final decision-maker with the option for the OpenAI Board of Directors to overrule. 2025-04-15 · revision · Inferred · Supported Inspect claim & evidence ↗ Inferred document comparison Provision · Required action: No deployment at High until risks sufficiently minimized Version 2 states that models reaching a High capability threshold are not deployed until the associated risks they pose are sufficiently minimized; the Beta states that only models with a post-mitigation score of “medium” or below can be deployed. 2025-04-15 · revision · Inferred · Supported Inspect claim & evidence ↗ Provisions in this version · 5 quoted · 1 not found · 1 disputed assessment 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.
Required action Critical capability requires safeguards during development “If a model under development reaches a Critical capability threshold, we also require safeguards to sufficiently minimize the associated risks during development, irrespective of deployment plans.” PDF p. 4 (printed p. 3), §1 Introduction, third bullet (“Safeguard against severe harms”), third sentence Inspect claim & evidence ↗ Required action No deployment at High until risks sufficiently minimized “We do not deploy models that reach a High capability threshold until the associated risks that they pose are sufficiently minimized.” PDF p. 4 (printed p. 3), §1 Introduction, third bullet (“Safeguard against severe harms”), second sentence Inspect claim & evidence ↗ Who decides Leadership approves or rejects SAG recommendations; SSC oversight “OpenAI Leadership can approve or reject these recommendations, and our Board’s Safety and Security Committee provides oversight of these decisions.” Recommends: Safety Advisory Group (SAG) · Decides: OpenAI Leadership · Informed: Safety and Security Committee of the OpenAI Board of Directors PDF p. 4 (printed p. 3), §1 Introduction, final paragraph, second sentence Inspect claim & evidence ↗ Who decides SAG makes final determination on ambiguous coverage “In cases of ambiguity about whether a model is covered by the Preparedness Framework, the SAG is responsible for making the final determination.” Decides: Safety Advisory Group (SAG) PDF p. 10 (printed p. 9), §3.2 Testing scope, final paragraph Inspect claim & evidence ↗ Exception Safeguard adjustment if another developer lacks comparable safeguards “If we are able to rigorously confirm that such a scenario has occurred, then we could adjust accordingly the level of safeguards that we require in that capability area, but only if:” PDF p. 13 (printed p. 12), §4.3 Marginal risk, first paragraph, third sentence (up to the colon introducing three bullets) Inspect claim & evidence ↗ Assessment of this required action provision Contested Preparedness Framework v2’s governance arrangements permit OpenAI Leadership to deploy models with High capabilities without safeguards that sufficiently minimize their associated risks. Holds: Coggins et al. (arXiv) · Disputes: OpenAI Inspect claim & evidence ↗ Not found in the inspected text Development restriction does not preclude safety-enhancing development Inspected: Version 2, both copies (Internet Archive capture of 2025-04-15 and current file), PDF pp. 1–22: §§1–5, Tables 1–3 and Appendices A (Change log), B (Decision-making practices) and C Inspect claim & evidence ↗ Issue and authorship records Issued by: OpenAI OpenAI published Preparedness Framework Version 2, identified by its revision date of 2025-04-15. 2025-04-15 · revision · 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 · applies parts of · parts applied by · discusses · reports evaluation of. A missing record does not show that the relation does not exist.