The DOI matches its DataCite record.
The 2025 OpenAI Preparedness Framework does not guarantee any AI risk mitigation practices: a proof-of-concept for affordance analyses of AI safety policies
Abstract
Prominent AI companies are producing 'safety frameworks' as a type of voluntary self-governance. These statements purport to establish risk thresholds and safety procedures for the development and deployment of highly capable AI. Understanding which AI risks are covered and what actions are allowed, refused, demanded, encouraged, or discouraged by these statements is vital for assessing how these frameworks actually govern AI development and deployment. We draw on affordance theory to analyse the OpenAI 'Preparedness Framework Version 2' (April 2025) using the Mechanisms & Conditions model of affordances and the MIT AI Risk Repository. We find that this safety policy requests evaluation of a small minority of AI risks, encourages deployment of systems with 'Medium' capabilities for unintentionally enabling 'severe harm' (which OpenAI defines as >1000 deaths or >$100B in damages), and allows OpenAI's CEO to deploy even more dangerous capabilities. These findings suggest that effective mitigation of AI risks requires more robust governance interventions beyond current industry self-regulation. Our affordance analysis provides a replicable method for evaluating what safety frameworks actually permit versus what they claim.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“However, the framework faces criticism for permissive thresholds, discretionary evaluation protocols, and static assessments that fail to account for post-deployment capability evolution (Coggins et al., 2025).”
From The landscape of agentic reinforcement learning for LLMs: a survey (2025) · cites this paper as Coggins et al., 2025
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The landscape of agentic reinforcement learning for LLMs: a survey
Zhang, G., Geng, H., Yu, X., Yin, Z., Zhang, Z., Tan, Z., Zhou, H., Li, Z., Xue, X., Li, Y., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.02547 · Cited by 229
Metadata
- Authors
- Coggins, S., Saeri, A. K., Daniell, K. A., Ruster, L. P., Liu, J., & Davis, J. L.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- arXiv
- 2509.24394
- References
- 0
- Type
- Preprint
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The 2025 OpenAI Preparedness Framework does not guarantee any AI risk mitigation practices: a proof-of-concept for affordance analyses of AI safety policies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.48550/arxiv.2509.24394
- The paper
- Coggins, S., Saeri, A. K., Daniell, K. A., Ruster, L. P., Liu, J., & Davis, J. L. (2025). The 2025 OpenAI Preparedness Framework does not guarantee any AI risk mitigation practices: a proof-of-concept for affordance analyses of AI safety policies. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2509.24394
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
