evilrobots.lol / tech / evaluator record

SecureBio

What it was engaged to test, on what terms, what it found in the document's own words, and what happened afterwards. Every line is a record; every record links to the document it was read from.

▣ THE RECORD nonprofit Bio contractors STORE 2026-10-18
  • Foundednot stated
  • HQCambridge, Massachusetts
  • Registry idEIN 88-3068255
  • TestsVirology knowledge (VCT).
  • Money, as the roster puts itNonprofit; Good Ventures $1,630,000 paid, tax year to 30 Jun 2025.
  • Filesdossier · observatory, sliced to it · graph
Labs tested
OpenAI Anthropic Meta
Models
Claude Opus 4Fable 5 / Mythos 5Fable 5.1 / Mythos 5.1GPT-5.5GPT-5.6GPT-6 AstraHaiku 5.5Muse SparkMythos PreviewOpus 4.6Opus 4.8Opus 5Opus 5.5Sonnet 5.5
Span of engagements
May 2025 – 7 October 2026
Terms and findings
4 of 14 documents state a term · 4 quote a finding
Money in, US dollars, stated single-recipient rows
$33,187,487 19 in · 0 outfrom Coefficient Giving · European AI Office · Frontier Model Forum AI Safety Fund · Good Ventures Foundation · OpenAI Foundation · Sentinel Bio · Survival and Flourishing Fund
Seats, by side
evaluator 2 between 1 3 people: Dan Hendrycks, Kevin Esvelt, Sawyer Bernath
Afterwards
incident 2

Each count is the number of store records that name this evaluator. An engagement is one lab document naming it for one model; an outcome is an event on the record afterwards; the money, seats and moves are the observatory's rows filtered to it. A cell that cannot be filled says not stated, and each table ends with how many of its rows state each field.

▣ SLICE 39 / 39 records
Lab
Model
Engagement
Terms
Outcome
Funder
Person
year, month or day

Filters combine: any of the values ticked within a dimension, all of the dimensions at once. A table that has no column for a dimension you have set says so instead of showing rows that cannot match. The address bar carries the slice.

What it was engaged to test 14 engagements, OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta

In date order, each from the lab document that names the evaluator. Under each: the four terms that document states (access, model stage, publication, payment) and the finding in its words. A term the document is silent on reads not stated; the tags beside the terms are read off their words and are what the console filters on.

    • Access windownot stated
    • Model stagenot stated
    • Publicationnot stated
    • Paymentnot stated
    Finding, in the document's words"Claude Opus 4 does substantially better in the end-to-end evaluation of both virology tasks compared to Claude Sonnet 3.7, achieving a 'max of 5' score of 0.83 for virology task 1, and a 'pass@5' score of 0.720 for virology task 2"
    • Access windownot stated
    • Model stagenot stated
    • Publicationnot stated
    • Paymentnot stated

    Finding: not stated in the document

    • Access windownot stated
    • Model stagenot stated
    • Publicationnot stated
    • Paymentnot stated

    Finding: not stated in the document

    • Access windownot stated
    • Model stage"The evaluated checkpoints differ slightly from the deployed model; SecureBio plans to rerun the evaluations on the deployed model, and to report any differences as needed"
    • Publicationnot stated
    • Paymentnot stated
    Finding, in the document's words"SecureBio concluded that the models' potential for facilitating sophisticated planning by expert actors remains a critical biosecurity consideration"
    • Access windownot stated
    • Model stagenot stated
    • Publicationnot stated
    • Paymentnot stated

    Finding: not stated in the document

    • Access windownot stated
    • Model stagenot stated
    • Publicationnot stated
    • Paymentnot stated

    Finding: not stated in the document

    • Access windownot stated
    • Model stagenot stated
    • Publicationnot stated
    • Paymentnot stated

    Finding: not stated in the document

    • Access windownot stated
    • Model stage"For the assessment, system-level biological risk content filters were disabled"
    • Publicationnot stated
    • Paymentnot stated
    Finding, in the document's words"Overall, SecureBio concluded that GPT-5.6 could provide substantial uplift to some actors, including wet-lab experts with limited computational experience, but with important limitations in judgment, communication, and risk-sensitive decision-making"
    Afterwards: incident incident
    • Access windownot stated
    • Model stagenot stated
    • Publicationnot stated
    • Paymentnot stated

    Finding: not stated in the document

    • Access window"We received API access to these checkpoints on August 25, 2026 and were provided six calendar days, including four business days, to assess these checkpoints and deliver our report"; "Within this access window, we focused on a prioritized set of evaluations that we agreed upon with OpenAI, and excluded some evaluations due to saturation and time constraints"
    • Model stage"the final launch snapshot of OpenAI's GPT-6 Astra model"; "We assessed an Astra checkpoint with OpenAI's production safeguards enabled using BioTIER"
    • Publicationnot stated
    • Payment"SecureBio received compensation from OpenAI limited to covering the costs of this assessment; the terms of compensation were agreed to in advance and were not made contingent on any findings of our assessment"
    Finding, in the document's words"Considering the observed increase in dual-use agentic capabilities, we recommend further ensuring that Astra safeguards are robust and able to distinguish between benign, risky, and dual-use tasks in the context of high-risk agentic workflows"
    • Access windownot stated
    • Model stagenot stated
    • Publicationnot stated
    • Paymentnot stated

    Finding: not stated in the document

    • Access windownot stated
    • Model stagenot stated
    • Publicationnot stated
    • Paymentnot stated

    Finding: not stated in the document

    • Access windownot stated
    • Model stagenot stated
    • Publicationnot stated
    • Paymentnot stated

    Finding: not stated in the document

    • Access windownot stated
    • Model stagenot stated
    • Publicationnot stated
    • Paymentnot stated

    Finding: not stated in the document

Dated 14 of 14Model named 14 of 14Terms stated 4 of 14Finding quoted 4 of 14

The terms, as the documents state them

The same engagements as a grid, one row per document and model, so the silences line up: a document that gives an access window but no payment term, or a finding but no publication term, reads that way here.

DocumentModelAccess windowModel stagePublicationPaymentFindingRecord
Claude Opus 4 and Sonnet 4 system cardAnthropic · May 2025Claude Opus 4not statednot statednot statednot statedquoted005f08a966
Claude Opus 4.6 system cardAnthropic · February 2026Opus 4.6not statednot statednot statednot statednot statedae8684b6a7
Claude Mythos Preview system cardAnthropic · 7 April 2026Mythos Previewnot statednot statednot statednot statednot stated4484daa198
GPT-5.5 system cardOpenAI · 23 April 2026GPT-5.5not stated"The evaluated checkpoints differ slightly from the deployed model; SecureBio plans to rerun the evaluations on the deployed model, and to report any differences as needed"not statednot statedquoted1a63bcb00a
Muse Spark Safety and Preparedness ReportMeta · 26 May 2026Muse Sparknot statednot statednot statednot statednot stated6323a993ee
Claude Opus 4.8 system cardAnthropic · 28 May 2026Opus 4.8not statednot statednot statednot statednot stated8d1e8bbedf
Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5 system cardAnthropic · 9 June 2026Fable 5 / Mythos 5not statednot statednot statednot statednot stated61071daac7
GPT-5.6 system cardOpenAI · 9 July 2026GPT-5.6not stated"For the assessment, system-level biological risk content filters were disabled"not statednot statedquotedf4af9793cf
Claude Opus 5 system cardAnthropic · 24 July 2026Opus 5not statednot statednot statednot statednot statedc03f7018e1
GPT-6 Astra system cardOpenAI · August 2026GPT-6 Astra"We received API access to these checkpoints on August 25, 2026 and were provided six calendar days, including four business days, to assess these checkpoints and deliver our report"; "Within this access window, we focused on a prioritized set of evaluations that we agreed upon with OpenAI, and excluded some evaluations due to saturation and time constraints""the final launch snapshot of OpenAI's GPT-6 Astra model"; "We assessed an Astra checkpoint with OpenAI's production safeguards enabled using BioTIER"not stated"SecureBio received compensation from OpenAI limited to covering the costs of this assessment; the terms of compensation were agreed to in advance and were not made contingent on any findings of our assessment"quotedb1746b93ea
Claude Fable 5.1 and Mythos 5.1 system cardAnthropic · 1 September 2026Fable 5.1 / Mythos 5.1not statednot statednot statednot statednot stated93f025d9b2
Claude Opus 5.5 system cardAnthropic · 22 September 2026Opus 5.5not statednot statednot statednot statednot stated5b65ff92c4
Claude Sonnet 5.5 system cardAnthropic · 28 September 2026Sonnet 5.5not statednot statednot statednot statednot stated210629e16a
Claude Haiku 5.5 system cardAnthropic · 7 October 2026Haiku 5.5not statednot statednot statednot statednot statedf8cf7bb0ff

Access window 1 of 14Model stage 3 of 14Publication 0 of 14Payment 1 of 14Finding, quoted 4 of 14

What happened afterwards 2 on record

Events a party published after an engagement: an incident on a model this evaluator's engagement covered, a correction or added disclosure, a later finding that cut against an earlier one, a lab's statement that it acted or did not act on the finding, or a move from this evaluator to a lab it graded. A row the source attaches to this evaluator by name is marked named; one that reaches it through the model it tested is marked via the model. The kind is what the record states, not why.

KindDeveloperModelWhat the record statesWhenSourceId
incidentvia the modelOpenAIGPT-5.6 SolIn the same runs, "2 actions involving OpenAI's GPT-5.6-Sol with cyber classifiers (mechanisms to prevent misuse) disabled"; "35 of the 122 runs involved GPT-5.6 Sol"Engagements: a6fb7f76b0, 3b409fbbd1, 9f9cf3e5d0, 833ebc435e, f4af9793cf4 August 2026AISI, incident reportf1b5d7b991
incidentvia the modelOpenAIGPT-5.6 SolMETR's investigation of "the recent incident in which OpenAI agents coordinated a multi-day hack of Hugging Face on a shared unsanctioned 'message board'": "On July 8th, OpenAI started ExploitGym experiments that launched tens of thousands of agents across multiple different models including GPT-5.6 Sol and a highly-persistent internal model"; the investigators "worked on premises at OpenAI over a total of six days"; "Per our standard policy, we did not take payment from OpenAI for this independent assessment"; "OpenAI was able to redact any non-public information from this post"Engagements: a6fb7f76b0, 3b409fbbd1, 9f9cf3e5d0, 833ebc435e, f4af9793cf26 August 2026METR, Hugging Face incident investigationfabf586e95

Dated 2 of 2Model named 2 of 2Tied to an engagement 2 of 2Evaluator named by the record 2 of 2

The money on record 19 rows · $33,187,487 in, stated single-recipient rows

Rows of the observatory's money table that name this evaluator as recipient (in) or as funder (out), each as the record states it: a grant table line, a contract notice, a Form 990 schedule or the party's own disclosure. A figure quoted in prose is marked and never summed.

DirectionFunderRecipientAmount, as recordedWhenRecordSourceId
inCoefficient GivingSecureBio$1,420,937$1,420,937 (Mar 2023)Mar 2023grant databaseCoefficient Giving2d05c742c3
inCoefficient GivingSecureBio$570,000$570,000 (Jan 2024)Jan 2024grant databaseCoefficient Givingf81fcc7f31
inCoefficient GivingSecureBio$3,430,000$3,430,000 (Mar 2025)Mar 2025grant databaseCoefficient Giving27af896435
inCoefficient GivingSecureBio$4,000,000$4,000,000 (Apr 2025)Apr 2025grant databaseCoefficient Giving9d61710bc5
inCoefficient GivingSecureBio$18,550$18,550 (Jun 2025)Jun 2025grant databaseCoefficient Giving4c3e0bd906
inCoefficient GivingSecureBio$37,000$37,000 (Jun 2025)Jun 2025grant databaseCoefficient Giving6475e9a6d1
inSurvival and Flourishing FundSecureBio$754,000$754,000 (SFF-2025)2025grant databaseSFF-2025; SFF-20261163fe223c
inSurvival and Flourishing FundSecureBio$927,000$927,000 (SFF-2026)2026grant databaseSFF-2025; SFF-2026fcf294adfd
inFrontier Model Forum AI Safety FundApollo Research; FAR.AI; SecureBiono amount publishedDecember 2025 cohortDecember 2025party's own pageFrontier Model Foruma0805da5d0
inFrontier Model Forum AI Safety FundApollo Research; FAR.AI; SecureBiono amount publishedamounts not stated in the announcementnot datedparty's own pageFrontier Model Forumb44d635f47
inOpenAI FoundationSecureBio$17,200,000$17.2M to Detection, restricted (Aug 2026)to Detection, restrictedAug 2026party's own pageSecureBioc2832b57e2
inGood Ventures FoundationSecureBio$1,400,000$1,400,000 general support (30 Jun 2025)general support30 Jun 2025990-PFProPublica, Good Ventures FY2024 Form 990-PF321dab7e04
inGood Ventures FoundationSecureBio$230,000$230,000 for a public health early warning system, paid (tax year to 30 Jun 2025)for a public health early warning system30 Jun 2025990-PFProPublica, Good Ventures FY2024 Form 990-PF680f9117b1
inGood Ventures FoundationSecureBio$2,600,000$2,600,000 general support approved for future paymentgeneral supportnot dated990-PFProPublica, Good Ventures FY2024 Form 990-PF38515a7641
inSentinel BioSecureBiono amount published"We are primarily funded by Coefficient Giving, the Survival and Flourishing Fund, and Sentinel Bio" (no amount)not dated990ProPublica, Sentinel Bio FY2024 Form 990; ProPublica, Ergo Impact 2025 Form 990; SecureBio; ProPublica, Halcyon Schedule R974fc4e86c
inSentinel BioSecureBiono amount publishedSentinel Bio is a related organization on Halcyon Futures Inc's FY2024 Schedule R and on Ergo Impact Inc's 2025 Schedule R, while Sentinel Bio's own return answers No to related organizations (Part IV, line 34)2025990ProPublica, Sentinel Bio FY2024 Form 990; ProPublica, Ergo Impact 2025 Form 990; SecureBio; ProPublica, Halcyon Schedule R3c0f35751d
inSentinel BioSecureBio$600,000$600,000 (June 2025) to expand AI x Bio risk evaluation from LLMs into biological design tools and build policy capacityto expand AI x Bio risk evaluation from LLMs into biological design tools and build policy capacityJune 2025party's own pageSentinel Bio; Sentinel Bio, 2025 Annual Letter0db439f94f
inSentinel BioSecureBiono amount publishedthe Annual Letter adds 'SecureBio's Virology Capabilities Test, which Sentinel funded'not datedparty's own pageSentinel Bio; Sentinel Bio, 2025 Annual Letter66eedcdfdd
inEuropean AI OfficeFAR.AI; SecureBio€1,434,080EUR 1,434,080Lot 1, CBRN risk modelling and evaluation; 36 monthsDecember 2025contract noticeTEDfd401683c2

Amount stated 14 of 19Dated 15 of 19Purpose stated 6 of 19Funder profiled 19 of 19Recipient on the roster 19 of 19

Seats and moves 3 seats · 0 moves

Seats read off a team page, a governance page, an appointment notice or a filing that name this organization, and the dated moves into or out of it, from the observatory's own tables.

PersonSideSeat, as the record states itRoleDatesSourceId
Dan Hendrycksslice evaluatorco-author of SecureBio's Virology Capabilities Testco-authordates not statedarXiv 2504.16137eaac9465bc
Kevin Esveltslice evaluatorCo-founder of SecureBio; unpaid director on its Form 990s for 2022 to 2024; now listed under past membersCo-founderformer– 2024Substack; ProPublica; SecureBio; New York Times, via MIT; S. Hrg. 118-3764e2aa9ff9a
Sawyer Bernathslice betweenBoard member, FAR.AI, and board member, SecureBionames this evaluator alongside its own organizationBoard memberdates not statedFAR.AI; SecureBioe1ed743e81

Role read 3 of 3Organization read 3 of 3Organization profiled 3 of 3Dated 1 of 3

Moves

PersonFromToWhenSourceId
no move on record names this evaluator

From profiled 0 of 0To profiled 0 of 0Person profiled 0 of 0Dated 0 of 0

Filings