ai governance teams

Abstract: Capabilities relevant to Physical AI can arise from materially different formation histories, yet existing taxonomies organized by morphology, architecture, learning algorithm, task, or domain do not directly answer what gives rise to a capability. We define a capability-formation source as a factor materially contributing to capability formation, distinct from components or construction steps. We identify seven non-exclusive sources: Recorded-Experience (RE), Predictive-Modeling (PM), Evaluative-Interaction (EI), Surrogate-Environment (SE), Mechanism-Grounded (MG), Embodied-Coupling (EC), and Evolution-Driven (ED) Formation. Using reconstructive induction with theoretical saturation, we traced a research matrix to primary studies, deduplicated the literature, set coding rules, and conducted three rounds of maximum-difference and negative-case sampling. Challenges included curriculum and self-supervised learning, active inference, open-ended and developmental learning, planning and search, neuro-symbolic architectures, digital twins, generative physical world models, and morphology-control co-design. Within the scope and criteria fixed as of September 4, 2026, all 49 evidence records were explainable by the seven sources individually or in combination. No R1-R3 challenge produced an irreducible eighth source, and R3 required no new core definition or substantive boundary rule. We therefore claim theoretical saturation within the stated scope, not logical completeness or exhaustive future coverage. The framework distinguishes similarity in observed capability from similarity in how it was formed, supporting analysis of explanation, transfer, replication, dependencies, governance evidence, and geoeconomic foundations.

Abstract: Frontier AI developers publish safety frameworks that commit them to evidencing whether their models are dangerous. The European Union and California now treat these documents as instruments of accountability, and both already impose duties on their revision. Neither requires the revision to be legible, in the sense that a reader could learn from the developer's own account what changed. We introduce the silent revision rate, the share of material changes to a framework's commitments that the developer's published account does not identify, and we release the versioned, hash-pinned corpus needed to compute it. The corpus contains every public version of the safety frameworks of the twelve developers that have published one, together with each provider's changelog, redline or announcement. We trace 710 commitment instances across twelve consecutive version pairs, code them against a frozen codebook, and adjudicate 244 individually. Three findings follow. First, 67% of material changes (95% CI 62 to 72) are silent under a strict standard and 53% under a lenient one, falling to 49% at section granularity. Second, silence appears to track the form of the account, since narrative announcements run at 74% against 63% for itemised changelogs, whereas account length in words barely matters; on the test that respects nesting the difference is suggestive. Third, 77% of traced changes weaken or remove a commitment, and in seven of eight pairs weakenings are more often silent than strengthenings. The statutory remedy therefore exists and specifies the wrong artefact. A justification explains why a framework changed, an enumeration states what changed, and only the latter makes revision auditable. We argue that publication duties should carry an enumeration duty, which one provider already meets, voluntarily and incompletely.