Jacob Charnock | arXiv Science

arXiv2026

What Should Frontier AI Developers Disclose About Internal Deployments?

Frontier AI developers are increasingly deploying highly capable models internally to automate AI R&D, but these deployments currently face limited external oversight. It is essential, therefore, that developers provide evidence that internally deployed models are safe. While recent work has highlighted the risks of internal deployments and proposed broad approaches to transparency and governance, there remains little guidance on the specific information developers should disclose about them. We address this gap by identifying key information that companies should disclose about internally deployed models across four categories: capabilities, usage, safety mitigations, and governance. For each category, we analyse the key benefits and limitations of disclosure and consider how disclosure-related risks can be mitigated. Our framework could be used by developers to inform both public transparency documents, such as model system cards, and private periodic reports required under emerging frontier AI regulation.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Expanding External Access To Frontier AI Models For Dangerous Capability Evaluations

Frontier AI companies increasingly rely on external evaluations to assess risks from dangerous capabilities before deployment. However, external evaluators often receive limited model access, limited information, and little time, which can reduce evaluation rigour and confidence. The EU General-Purpose AI Code of Practice calls for "appropriate access", but does not specify what this means in practice. Furthermore, there is no common framework for describing different types and levels of evaluator access. To address this gap, we propose a taxonomy of access methods for dangerous capability evaluations. We disentangle three aspects of access: model access, model information, and evaluation timeframe. For each aspect, we review benefits and risks, including how expanding access can reduce false negatives and improve stakeholder trust, but can also increase security and capacity challenges. We argue that these limitations can likely be mitigated through technical means and safeguards used in other industries. Based on the taxonomy, we propose three descriptive access levels: AL1 (black-box model access and minimal information), AL2 (grey-box model access and substantial information), and AL3 (white-box model access and comprehensive information), to support clearer communication between evaluators, frontier AI companies, and policymakers. We believe these levels correspond to the different standards for appropriate access defined in the EU Code of Practice, though these standards may change over time.

cs.CY↗