Which legal duties does "Frontier model safety and security framework" satisfy?

It is recorded as satisfying 5 and supporting 4 duties across California (United States), European Union and South Korea. A mapping means the control, operated properly, does the work the duty asks for; the official text decides whether it is enough.

What evidence shows this control is operating?

Published frontier safety framework, Dangerous-capability evaluation report, Threshold notification to an authority and Training compute tracking record. Owner: Head of AI safety. Frequency: annual.

Policy Owner: Head of AI safety Annual

Frontier model safety and security framework

Commits a developer of the most capable general-purpose models to a published, regularly reviewed description of how it identifies catastrophic and systemic risks, decides when a model is safe to train further or release, and protects model weights.

Source-linked Context file

Duties satisfied: 5; done properly, does the work
Duties supported: 4; contributes; the duty needs more
Jurisdictions: 3
Evidence items: 4

How is it implemented?

The developer writes and publishes a framework that sets capability thresholds of concern, the evaluations used to detect them, the mitigations that must be in place before crossing each threshold, the security measures for weights and infrastructure, and the internal governance that makes go or no-go decisions. Training compute is tracked against regulatory thresholds so that notification duties are met on time. The framework is reviewed at least annually and after significant capability jumps or incidents, changes are recorded in a version log, and summaries of evaluations and mitigations are shared with authorities and downstream providers as required.

Which legal duties does it serve?

Satisfies means the control, operated properly, does the work the duty asks for. Supports means it contributes but the duty needs more. The official text decides; open it before relying on either.

California (United States) 4 duties

satisfies Legal requirement confidence high
Large frontier developers must publish a frontier AI framework
California SB 53 · Business and Professions Code, Chapter 25.1 (as added by SB 53) · applies from 1 Jan 2026

The published, annually reviewed framework with a change log.
satisfies Legal requirement
Large frontier developers must send periodic summaries of catastrophic-risk assessments to the state
California SB 53 · Business and Professions Code Section 22757.12 (as added by SB 53) · applies from 1 Jan 2026

Framework defines the catastrophic-risk assessment whose summaries are submitted.
supports Legal requirement
Report critical safety incidents to the Office of Emergency Services
California SB 53 · Business and Professions Code, Chapter 25.1 (as added by SB 53) · applies from 1 Jan 2026

Defines the incident types the framework is meant to prevent.
supports Legal requirement
Frontier developers must publish a transparency report before deploying a new frontier model
California SB 53 · Business and Professions Code Section 22757.12 (as added by SB 53) · applies from 1 Jan 2026

Report describes steps taken under the framework.

European Union 4 duties

satisfies Legal requirement
Manage systemic risk for high-impact general-purpose models
EU AI Act · Articles 51, 52 and 55 · applies from 2 Aug 2025

Compute tracking, notification and the safety and security framework.
satisfies Legal requirement confidence high
Providers of GPAI models must notify the Commission within two weeks of meeting the systemic-risk threshold
EU AI Act · Article 52(1) · applies from 2 Aug 2025

Compute tracking and threshold notification are part of the framework.
supports Legal requirement
Providers of systemic-risk GPAI models must track and report serious incidents to the AI Office
EU AI Act · Article 55(1)(c) · applies from 2 Aug 2025

Framework defines the incident types and escalation.
supports Legal requirement confidence high
Providers of systemic-risk GPAI models must secure the model and its infrastructure
EU AI Act · Article 55(1)(d) · applies from 2 Aug 2025

Framework commits to the weight-security measures.

South Korea 1 duty

satisfies Legal requirement
Operators of AI above the compute threshold must run lifecycle risk management and report safety results
Framework Act on the Development of Artificial Intelligence and Establishment of a Foundation for Trust · Article 32 · applies from 22 Jan 2026

Compute tracking, lifecycle risk assessment and reporting to the authority.

What evidence shows it is operating?

Evidence this control produces
Evidence	Type	What it shows
Published frontier safety framework	Policy document	Capability thresholds, evaluations, mitigations, security measures and governance, with a version log.
Dangerous-capability evaluation report	Evaluation or test report
Threshold notification to an authority	Regulatory filing or notification
Training compute tracking record	Register entry

Owner: Head of AI safety. Frequency: annual.

Which risks does it address?

Subdomains of the MIT AI Risk Repository, with the incidents the AI Incident Database has recorded under each. Counts are live; they say how often a risk has materialised, not how well this control prevents it.

7.2 AI possessing dangerous capabilities AI system safety, failures, & limitations0 incidents · 78 risk entries
7.1 AI pursuing its own goals in conflict with human goals or values AI system safety, failures, & limitations3 incidents · 100 risk entries
4.2 Cyberattacks, weapon development or use, and mass harm Malicious actors15 incidents · 82 risk entries
6.1 Power centralization and unfair distribution of benefits Socioeconomic & Environmental6 incidents · 54 risk entries

Which standards clauses does it correspond to?

Clause numbers only. A reference means the standard asks for overlapping work, so evidence may be reusable; it never means the standard discharges a legal duty.

Framework references
Framework	Reference	Confidence
NIST AI RMF	GOVERN 1.3, 1.4; MAP 5.1; MEASURE 2.6; MANAGE 1.3	medium
ISO/IEC 42001	Clause 5.2, 6.1.2; Annex A.6.1.2	low
MITRE ATLAS	AML.M0001 Limit Model Artifact Release, AML.M0005 Control Access to ML Models and Data at Rest	medium

Cite this record

AIPolicyTracker (2026). “Frontier model safety and security framework”. https://aipolicytracker.org/controls/frontier-model-safety-framework (accessed 24 September 2026). Data licensed CC BY 4.0.

Informational only, not legal advice. Verify every claim against the linked official sources and consult qualified counsel before acting.

Governance card

Kind: Policy
Owner: Head of AI safety
Frequency: Annual
Binding duties: 9 of 9
Review status: Pending human review

Confirm which of the duties above reach you (applicability check).
Assign the owner and the frequency.
Operate the control and keep the evidence listed.
Re-check when a duty changes (change log).

Related controls

AI incident management and regulatory reporting Process
AI risk assessment and lifecycle risk register Process
Adversarial and red-team testing for generative AI Technical measure

Report a correction How we verify

Run this control as a tracked task with Certifyi, a separate compliance execution platform. AIPolicyTracker itself stays open and independent.

Frequently asked questions

Which legal duties does "Frontier model safety and security framework" satisfy?: It is recorded as satisfying 5 and supporting 4 duties across California (United States), European Union and South Korea. A mapping means the control, operated properly, does the work the duty asks for; the official text decides whether it is enough.
What evidence shows this control is operating?: Published frontier safety framework, Dangerous-capability evaluation report, Threshold notification to an authority and Training compute tracking record. Owner: Head of AI safety. Frequency: annual.