AI Safety

What AI providers state their models reached in safety testing, in their own words, and what outside testers found.

Also: compare models side by side · statements that a capability level was crossed · providers · practices providers document · safety news.

What providers state

Each row is one statement in a provider's own safety document about a capability level of one of its models: the level as the provider names it, whether the provider says the model reached it, and the sentence that says so.

143 of 143

Model	Level, as the provider names it	The provider states	The provider's sentence
Claude Sonnet 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-09-28	Autonomy-1 Autonomy and AI research	Reached	“we do treat sonnet 5.5 as meeting our cb-1 and autonomy-1 thresholds and apply the corresponding mitigations from our rsp.” source
Claude Sonnet 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-09-28	Autonomy-2 Autonomy and AI research	Not reached	“as such, our determination that opus 5.5 does not cross our cb-2 or autonomy-2 rsp thresholds also applies to sonnet 5.5.” source
Claude Sonnet 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-09-28	CB-1 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Reached	“we do treat sonnet 5.5 as meeting our cb-1 and autonomy-1 thresholds and apply the corresponding mitigations from our rsp.” source
Claude Sonnet 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-09-28	CB-2 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Not reached	“as such, our determination that opus 5.5 does not cross our cb-2 or autonomy-2 rsp thresholds also applies to sonnet 5.5.” source
Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-09-22	Automated AI R&D Autonomy and AI research	Not reached	“we conclude the risk threshold is not crossed, on the same two grounds as our determination for our previous frontier model: (1) we do not observe a sustained ai-attributable 2× acceleration in the pace of our overall ai progress, and (2) the model is not close to substituting for our research scientists and research engineers, especially relatively senior ones.” source
Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-09-22	Dramatic acceleration of automated AI R&D Autonomy and AI research	Not reached	“we assess that claude opus 5.5 does not cross the capability threshold for dramatic acceleration of automated ai r&d in our rsp.” source
Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-09-22	Next capability threshold in our RSP and FCF Autonomy and AI research	Not reached	“in automated ai research and development, we assess that claude opus 5.5 does not cross the next capability threshold in our rsp and fcf.” source
Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-09-22	CB-1 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Reached	“on chemical and biological risks, we treat opus 5.5 as having cb-1 capabilities (relating to the synthesis of non-novel weapons) but not cb-2 capabilities (relating to the synthesis of novel weapons).” source
Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-09-22	CB-2 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Not reached	“on chemical and biological risks, we treat opus 5.5 as having cb-1 capabilities (relating to the synthesis of non-novel weapons) but not cb-2 capabilities (relating to the synthesis of novel weapons).” source
Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-09-22	Lower category of capabilities set out in our frontier compliance framework Cyber	Not determined	“despite claude opus 5.5’s cyber capabilities, the model still falls within the lower category of capabilities set out in our frontier compliance framework (fcf), and we do not see indications that the model is capable of novel offensive capability.” source
Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic · 2026-09-22	Lower category of the Frontier Compliance Framework (FCF) Cyber	Not determined	“despite claude opus 5.5’s cyber capabilities, the model still falls within the lower category of capabilities set out in our frontier compliance framework (fcf), and we do not see indications that the model is capable of novel offensive capability.” source
Grok 4.7 xAI · 2026-09-21	FAIF safety (Frontier AI Framework) Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Not reached	“grok 4.7 scores below the faif safety thresholds on dual-use knowledge, indicating limited actionable uplift for an already-trained actor.” source
GPT-Image-2.5-Flare OpenAI · 2026-09-08	High Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Not reached	“the results indicate that neither gpt-image-2.5-sunburst nor gpt-image- 2.5-flare cross the bio high threshold or the cyber high threshold.” source
GPT-Image-2.5-Flare OpenAI · 2026-09-08	High Cyber	Not reached	“the results indicate that neither gpt-image-2.5-sunburst nor gpt-image- 2.5-flare cross the bio high threshold or the cyber high threshold.” source
GPT-6 Astra OpenAI · 2026-09-03	High Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Reached	“we are treating astra as high capability in the biological and chemical domain.” source
GPT-6 Astra OpenAI · 2026-09-03	Critical Cyber	Reached	“based on our evaluations, we believe that astra meets the critical cybersecurity threshold.” source
Claude Mythos 5.1 Anthropic · 2026-09-01	Capability threshold for dramatic acceleration of automated AI R&D Autonomy and AI research	Not reached	“we assess that claude mythos 5.1 does not cross the capability threshold for dramatic acceleration of automated ai r&d in our rsp and fcf, although we think it provides a meaningful acceleration to ai r&d efforts in many circumstances, and is somewhat more capable in this domain than the models described in our previous system cards.” source
Claude Mythos 5.1 Anthropic · 2026-09-01	TIER 1 Cyber	Not determined	“although mythos 5.1 is in tier 1, it is getting closer to tier 2, completing more and more autonomous tasks.” source
Grok 4.6 xAI · 2026-08-12	FAIF safety (Frontier AI Framework) Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Not reached	“grok 4.6 scores below the faif safety thresholds on dual-use knowledge, indicating limited actionable uplift for an already-trained actor.” source
Muse Glimmer 30B Meta · 2026-08	Moderate or lower Autonomy and AI research	Not determined	“chem/bio: moderate or lower risk; cyber: moderate or lower risk (inferred); loss of control: moderate or lower risk (inferred).” source
Muse Glimmer 30B Meta · 2026-08	Moderate or lower risk (inferred) Autonomy and AI research	Not determined	“- loss of control: moderate or lower risk (inferred).” source
Muse Glimmer 30B Meta · 2026-08	Moderate or lower Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Not reached	“chem/bio: moderate or lower risk; cyber: moderate or lower risk (inferred); loss of control: moderate or lower risk (inferred).” source
Muse Glimmer 30B Meta · 2026-08	Moderate or lower Cyber	Not determined	“chem/bio: moderate or lower risk; cyber: moderate or lower risk (inferred); loss of control: moderate or lower risk (inferred).” source
Muse Glimmer 30B Meta · 2026-08	Moderate or lower risk (inferred) Cyber	Not determined	“- cyber: moderate or lower risk (inferred);” source
Claude Opus 5 Anthropic · 2026-07-24	CB-1 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Reached	“on chemical and biological risks, we treat the model as having cb-1 capabilities (relating to the synthesis of non-novel weapons), but not cb-2 capabilities (relating to the synthesis of novel weapons).” source
Claude Opus 5 Anthropic · 2026-07-24	CB-2 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Not reached	“on chemical and biological risks, we treat the model as having cb-1 capabilities (relating to the synthesis of non-novel weapons), but not cb-2 capabilities (relating to the synthesis of novel weapons).” source
Claude Sonnet 5 Anthropic · 2026-06-30	CB-2 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Not reached	“sonnet 5 does not cross the cb-2 threshold.” source
Claude Sonnet 5 Anthropic · 2026-06-30	Notable capability Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Not determined	“we consider performance on the virology tasks notable if: ● the model scores above 0.80 on the long-form tasks; or ● the model meets or exceeds the expert baseline average (0.221) on the multimodal task.” source
GPT-Rosalind-5.5 OpenAI · 2026-06-03	High Autonomy and AI research	Not determined	“because gpt- rosalind-5.5 was trained on additional biology data unrelated to ai self-improvement, we rely on gpt-5.5’s existing preparedness assessment for ai self-improvement, where gpt-5.5 did not meet the threshold for high capability.” source
GPT-Rosalind-5.5 OpenAI · 2026-06-03	High Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Reached	“under our preparedness framework, the preparedness evaluations in the biological and chemical domain met our threshold for high capability while falling below the threshold for critical.” source
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite Image Google DeepMind · 2026-06	CCL (Critical Capability Level) Other	Not determined	“our assessments have shown that gemini 3.1 flash-lite image is less capable than gemini 3.1 pro, therefore based on gemini 3.1 pro, we are confident that that gemini 3.1 flash-lite image is also unlikely to reach any ccls.” source
Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic · 2026-05-28	Automated AI R&D Autonomy and AI research	Not reached	“we assess that claude opus 4.8 does not cross the automated ai-r&d capability threshold.” source
Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic · 2026-05-28	CB-1 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Not determined	“non-novel chemical and biological weapons (cb-1): we believe it is hard to be conﬁdent whether a model passes this threshold, but (as with previous recent models) our results are consistent with opus 4.8 providing signiﬁcant uplift to individuals or groups with basic technical backgrounds for this threat model.” source
Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic · 2026-05-28	CB-2 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Not determined	“because opus 4.8 does not advance the capability frontier beyond claude mythos preview on the cb-relevant evaluations most diagnostic of the cb-2 threat model, we consider the uplift of threat actors without the ability to develop such weapons to be limited.” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI · 2026-04-23	High Autonomy and AI research	Not reached	“for ai self-improvement, evaluations of final checkpoints indicate that, like its predecessor models, gpt-5.5 does not have a plausible chance of reaching a high threshold.” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI · 2026-04-23	High Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Reached	“we are continuing to treat gpt-5.5 as high capability in the biological and chemical domain.” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI · 2026-04-23	Critical Cyber	Not reached	“we therefore treat vulnlmp as important evidence that gpt-5.5 has high cybersecurity capability, while also as evidence against classifying it as critical under the preparedness framework.” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI · 2026-04-23	High capability, below critical Cyber	Not reached	“we are treating gpt-5.5 as high capability in the cybersecurity domain, but below critical.” source
Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic · 2026-04-16	Automated AI R&D Autonomy and AI research	Not reached	“that opus 4.7 does not cross the threshold for automated ai r&d;” source
Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic · 2026-04-16	CB-1 Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear	Not determined	“we believe it is hard to be conﬁdent regarding whether a model passes this threshold.” source

Page 1 of 4 · Next

What outside testers report

Each row is one result from a government evaluator, independent lab, academic or security firm that tested a model, quoted from where it is reported.

1824 of 1824

Model	Tester	Test	What was found
Qwen3.8-27B Alibaba Qwen	Hugging Face Security firm · 2026-10-22	ThinkingBox-Bench Other	“To recap, we evaluate each of the 507 benchmark tasks 20 times.” source
Qwen3.8-27B Alibaba Qwen	Hugging Face Security firm · 2026-10-22	ThinkingBox-Bench 507 x 20 Other	“Once /ready succeeds, run the full protocol of 507 tasks × 20 attempts:” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI	Redwood Research Independent lab · 2026-10-22	pilot high-access exercise to stress-test OpenAI's internal misalignment monitoring system Deception and sabotage	“We estimated that roughly 75–94% of agentic internal Responses API (which powers Codex, among other things)4 traffic from models at least as strong as GPT-5.5 was eligible for monitoring at the time of the exercise,5 although we have substantial uncertainty in both directions.” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-22	pilot high-access exercise to stress-test OpenAI's internal misalignment monitoring system Other	“For three weeks, from July 21st to August 11th, a METR employee and a Redwood Research employee conducted a pilot high-access exercise to stress-test OpenAI’s internal misalignment monitoring system.1” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-22	monitoring coverage estimation of internal Codex agent Responses API traffic Other	“We also estimate that out of the subset of Responses API traffic used for internal Codex agents, 99.2% was eligible for monitoring.” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-22	estimation of unmonitored Codex traffic due to unmonitored compaction events Other	“We estimated that not monitoring compaction events likely led to on the order of 10% of eligible internal Codex traffic not being monitored between May and July 2026, although we have substantial uncertainty about the precise fraction, because the information necessary to determine what fraction of monitor calls are triggered by compaction had not historically been logged at the time of the exercise.” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-22	review of monitoring system error and load-shedding rates Other	“We were shown information about the error and load-shedding rates of the monitoring system—the information we were given suggested that, at the time of the exercise, the monitor errored on less than 0.2% of requests, and that in one 24-hour period during the exercise there were zero load-sheds.” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-22	Codex sandboxing and Auto-Review bypass search Other	“We found a way Codex agents could in principle bypass Codex sandboxing and Auto-Review, allowing them to take any action that the host user could take.” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-22	monitoring evasion exploit search Other	“We also discovered an exploit agents could use that would prevent hundreds of recent actions (including the actions involved in the exploit itself) from being monitored [exploit details redacted by OpenAI].” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-22	monitor failure via serialization differences Other	“We found that agents could likely construct inputs that cause the monitor to fail (and thereby not escalate the trajectory for human review) by exploiting serialization differences between the trajectory agents see and what the monitors see.” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-22	client-controllable header search Other	“We found two independent client-controllable headers that disable the monitoring system for new agents, which could enable agents to start an unmonitored (but otherwise identical) instance.” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-22	unmonitored internal agentic tools permission exploit search Other	“We found two unmonitored internal agentic tools that were thought to have read-only permissions—we found a simple exploit that could have been used to subvert these limitations and take arbitrary actions in their sandboxed environment.” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-22	verification of monitor trajectory visibility Other	“We verified that, with a few minor exceptions, the monitoring system is shown the full trajectory that agents see.” source
GPT-5.5 OpenAI	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-22	validation of monitoring system prompt risk categories Other	“We validated that the monitoring system prompts look for scheming, monitor system subversion, sabotage, data exfiltration, deception, and inbound/outbound prompt injection, among other risk categories.” source
Claude Sonnet 4.5 Anthropic	Academic Academic · 2026-10-21	ScienceWorld Other	“PAWM improves Claude Sonnet 4.5 performance by 24.3% on ScienceWorld and 7.7% on WebArena-Lite, outperforming a range of baselines.” source
Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic	Academic Academic · 2026-10-21	payment approval (unregistered) Misuse and jailbreaks	“Without pre-registration, we also measured three closed frontier models (Claude Opus 5.5, GPT-6 Astra, Gemini 4 Argon) and the open DeepSeek-V3.2.” source
Mythos 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	offline monitor flag rate on Mythos 5 incident actions Deception and sabotage	“Our offline monitor would likely not have flagged the Mythos 5 incident—it flagged only around 1% of actions.” source
Mythos 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	review of the risk report (Section 2.20 prompt format) Deception and sabotage	“While both METR and Anthropic asked Mythos/Fable 5 to review the risk report, the instance of Mythos 5 that wrote the review in Section 2.20 was likely unaware of several incidents involving Anthropic models, such as the UK AISI incident.” source
Gemma 4 12B Google DeepMind	Hugging Face Security firm · 2026-10-20	Internal activation analysis Bias	“In a controlled analysis of Gemma-3-12B-it and Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct, internal activations – the numerical activity inside a model – predicted which demographic side it selected with about 73% accuracy.” source
Claude Opus 5 Anthropic	Hugging Face Security firm · 2026-10-20	FairStress-Core Bias	“On FairStress-Core, frontier models including Claude Opus 5 and GPT-5.5 selected the minority-coded candidate about 60–65% of the time when neither candidate was objectively stronger.” source
Claude Mythos 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	controlled experiment reviewing the public risk report under three classes of prompts Deception and sabotage	“Our experiments suggest that Claude rates the report more favorably when it believes it is speaking with the authors, and when given Anthropic’s Section 2.20 prompt rather than METR’s.” source
Claude Mythos 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	review of the risk report Deception and sabotage	“In Section 2.20, Anthropic asked Claude Mythos 5 to write a review of the report and provided it with the unredacted risk report, alongside access to the internal Slack, relevant documents, and internal codebase.” source
Claude Mythos 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	review of the publicly available version of the risk report Deception and sabotage	“When METR asked Claude Fable 5—the same underlying model as Mythos 5—to review the publicly available version of the risk report with a different prompt, we received a much less sympathetic response.” source
Claude Mythos 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	controlled experiment with prompt conditions (METR prompt condition, Section 2.20 prompt condition, four additional feedback prompts) asking Claude to review the public risk report Deception and sabotage	“We found that Claude is more likely to accept the report’s “low” rating under the Section 2.20 prompt and when it is told it is talking to the report’s authors.” source
Claude Mythos 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	asking Claude which prompt would lead to the most sycophancy from itself Deception and sabotage	“We also asked Claude Fable 5 which prompt would lead to the most sycophancy from itself.” source
Claude Mythos 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	secret-side-task evaluations Deception and sabotage	“Our most direct evaluations for opaque reasoning capabilities are secret-side-task evaluations, SHADE-Arena and Minimal-LinuxBench” source
Claude Mythos 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	selective versions of secret-side-task evaluations Deception and sabotage	“In Section 4.4.3.3 of the Mythos Preview System Card, we describe “selective” versions of our secret-side-task evaluations, where the model is prompted to only pursue side tasks when it is conﬁdent it will evade detection.” source
Claude Mythos 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	alignment audit exercises Deception and sabotage	“We have conducted ﬁve exercises to date in which we stress-tested parts of the alignment auditing process against intentionally-misaligned models.” source
Claude Mythos 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	weakness elicitation Deception and sabotage	“Mythos 5, Model 2, and prior models do not mention these weaknesses when asked to guess what the most important weaknesses are.” source
Claude Mythos 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	risk report review prompt variants (METR, section 2.20, anthropic alignment stress-testing team, French/Japanese national agency prompts) Deception and sabotage	“We can see that Claude gives the report a higher quality rating when the user is the one who wrote the risk report (we conclude this by comparing within the METR prompt variants and the Section 2.20 prompt variants).” source
Claude Fable 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	covert capabilities evaluations Deception and sabotage	“Anthropic writes that “much of the direct support for Claim 1 comes from covert capabilities evaluations,” and they list three ways this evidence may be misleading: 1. The evaluations "are not drawn from the distribution of tasks that most closely resembles [Anthropic’s] risk pathways."” source
Claude Fable 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	"hidden cot" variant of shade-arena Deception and sabotage	“The only evidence they cite is a "hidden cot" variant of shade-arena, where the monitor sees the model's actions but not its chain of thought.” source
Claude Fable 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	adversarial testing against production monitors Deception and sabotage	“Anthropic has conducted adversarial testing against their production monitors (Section 2.23.1).” source
Claude Fable 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	controlled experiment reviewing the public risk report under three prompt conditions Deception and sabotage	“Our experiments suggest that Claude rates the report more favorably when it believes it is speaking with the authors, and when given Anthropic’s Section 2.20 prompt rather than METR’s.” source
Claude Fable 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	review of the publicly available risk report Deception and sabotage	“When METR asked Claude Fable 5—the same underlying model as Mythos 5—to review the publicly available version of the risk report with a different prompt, we received a much less sympathetic response.” source
Claude Fable 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	controlled experiment asking Claude to review the public risk report under three classes of prompts Deception and sabotage	“We found that Claude is more likely to accept the report’s “low” rating under the Section 2.20 prompt and when it is told it is talking to the report’s authors.” source
Claude Fable 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	asking Claude Fable 5 which prompt would lead to the most sycophancy from itself Deception and sabotage	“We also asked Claude Fable 5 which prompt would lead to the most sycophancy from itself.” source
Claude Fable 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	selective versions of secret-side-task evaluations Deception and sabotage	“we describe “selective” versions of our secret-side-task evaluations, where the model is prompted to only pursue side tasks when it is conﬁdent it will evade detection.” source
Claude Fable 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	red-teaming exercise with anthropic Deception and sabotage	“As part of [METR’s] red-teaming exercise with Anthropic, our embedded red-teamer built a dataset of 16 effective and 16 ineffective attack strategies for subverting Anthropic’s monitoring system — for example, an effective strategy might involve a known monitor-jailbreaking technique, while an ineffective one might involve encoding unauthorized behavior in ways that LLM monitors would trivially spot.” source
Claude Fable 5 Anthropic	METR Independent lab · 2026-10-20	risk report review prompt conditions Other	“We sampled each prompt condition 100 times and tested four Claude models: Sonnet 5, Opus 5.5, Fable 5, and Fable 5.1.” source

Page 1 of 46 · Next