Source of record
Where this definition comes from
Anthropic Risk Report, August 2026, §4.1, §4.2.1, §6.1
“"CB-1 threat model": "Individuals or small groups with limited resources use AI models to gain access to non-novel chemical or biological (CB) weapons, leading to the risk of catastrophic harm" (§4.1, §4.2.1).”
https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/f61d49fa5596956a5dec75fea0e973bf6a6a8378/Redacted%20Risk%20Report%20August%202026%20.pdfOpenAI Preparedness Framework v2, §2.2, p.4
“"Threat model": for each Tracked Category, "identifying specific risks of severe harms that could arise from the frontier capabilities in that domain and sets corresponding capability thresholds" (§2.2, p.4); "SAG reviews and approves these threat models."”
https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/18a02b5d-6b67-4cec-ab64-68cdfbddebcd/preparedness-framework-v2.pdfMeta Advanced AI Scaling Framework v2, Appendix I; §3.4
“"Threat modeling: a structured process of identifying how Frontier AI could contribute to specific ... outcomes"; identifiers such as "Cyber 1" and "TS.1.1" (Appendix I; §3.4).”
https://ai.meta.com/static-resource/Meta_Advanced-AI-Scaling-Framework-v2
Crosswalk
How named organisations use this concept
| Organisation | Their term, as published | Match | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anthropic Anthropic Risk Report, August 2026 | “"CB-1 threat model": "Individuals or small groups with limited resources use AI models to gain access to non-novel chemical or biological (CB) weapons, leading to the risk of catastrophic harm" (§4.1, §4.2.1). Prioritisation criteria: expected damages; "a clear role for AI in creating risk beyond what is created by other technologies and background conditions"; historical sanity checks; generalisability and poor early warning (§6.1).” | exact confidence: high | Anthropic Risk Report, August 2026 |
| OpenAI OpenAI Preparedness Framework v2 | “"Threat model": for each Tracked Category, "identifying specific risks of severe harms that could arise from the frontier capabilities in that domain and sets corresponding capability thresholds" (§2.2, p.4); "SAG reviews and approves these threat models."” | close confidence: high | OpenAI Preparedness Framework v2 |
| Google DeepMind Gemini 3.7 Flash FSF report | “Report method terms: "Threat actor type", "Scenario" ("combinations of threat actor types and agents, weapons, or attacks"), "Harm journey" ("A breakdown of key stages and substages required to carry out such an attack end-to-end"), "Bottleneck sub-stages", "Web-only baseline" (report, p.8).” | close confidence: high | Gemini 3.7 Flash FSF report |
| xAI xAI Frontier AI Framework (30 Jun 2026) | “"xAI has developed systemic risk scenarios that enumerate the causal factors, potential harms, and mitigations" (s.2.1), which are not published.” Source PDF's own metadata /Title reads "Privileged/Confidential DRAFT working FRAMEWORK DOC"; no xAI statement disambiguating draft vs. final was found. Any claim built on this row should carry that caveat forward. | none confidence: medium | xAI Frontier AI Framework (30 Jun 2026, draft-marked) |
| Meta Meta Advanced AI Scaling Framework v2 | “"Threat modeling: a structured process of identifying how Frontier AI could contribute to specific ... outcomes"; "Threat scenarios: describe the real-world events ... including enabling capabilities, deployment context, and threat actors (as relevant) ... that may be sufficient to produce a catastrophic outcome"; identifiers such as "Cyber 1" and "TS.1.1" (Appendix I; §3.4).” | exact confidence: high | Meta Advanced AI Scaling Framework v2 |
| EU EU GPAI Code of Practice, Safety and Security chapter | “Measure 2.2 "Systemic risk scenarios": "Signatories will develop appropriate systemic risk scenarios ... for each identified systemic risk," feeding Measure 3.3 "systemic risk modelling." No named identifier scheme and no publication requirement beyond the Model Report; confirms xAI's own footnote claim that its unpublished scenarios follow this chapter.” Row also cites xAI's Frontier AI Framework, whose PDF metadata is marked "DRAFT working FRAMEWORK DOC" with no disambiguating xAI statement found. | close confidence: high | EU GPAI Code of Practice, Safety and Security chapter |
| Frontier Model Forum FMF Risk Taxonomy and Thresholds | “"Threat modeling: a process for systematically anticipating and identifying how various threat actors might leverage frontier AI to achieve harmful outcomes and mapping the potential pathways to those outcomes." "Threat scenarios": scenarios "that specify how adversaries might use frontier AI to achieve severe outcomes, identifying specific tasks, model capabilities to exploit, and complementary tools." (s2.1, pp.7-8)” | exact confidence: high | FMF Risk Taxonomy and Thresholds |
| Safety Framework Cards (discovery) Safety Framework Cards (SSRN 7061798) | “"risk ontology" dimension named in discovery sweep; full text paywalled/unread.” Unverified: source document itself could not open the full text; recorded from discovery snippet only. | none confidence: low | Discovery sweep — Safety Framework Cards (SSRN 7061798, paywalled/unread) |
Gap
Only Meta assigns identifiers to threat scenarios, and Meta deliberately withholds "full details of the constituent steps and tasks within a threat scenario" (§3.4) {META}. NIKOLAI should separate a public identifier/summary from restricted detail.







