Evaluator Bench
evaluator; distance from a lab: unattributed

US CAISI (NIST)

Scorecard

Pre-deployment agreements with five labs; 40+ evaluations; some classified via TRAINS taskforce.

Government, Gaithersburg, US. Government institute; listed with government institutes. Confidence high. Domains: cyber, bio, misuse, assurance.

No floor triggered 7/8 evidenced · Retrieved & confirmed Scores by preset: Lab procurement –; Regulator or auditor –; Public trust –; Equal weights –. Weakest evidenced dimension: method transparency 2/4. No evidenced dimension below 2 — not a pass. No floor triggered means no disqualifying conflict is on file, not a pass. Partial evidence (7/8).

The weighted numbers are hidden until you ask for them: two readers with different priorities see different numbers, and neither is the site's.

What would move the score. Regular public reporting per model and a standing budget line insulated from reorganization.

Dissent, lower. Publication (R) at 2 could be 1. For the five partner labs, no per-model evaluation has been published; the public write-ups concern a foreign model tested without cooperation and two vulnerability disclosures the labs had already fixed. CSA records "no mandatory disclosure of findings". Under R.4, a public body that publishes nothing per model for the labs it has agreements with scores 1, and the DeepSeek report is the exception rather than the practice.

Dissent, higher. Publication (R) at 2 could be 3. CAISI has published a full per-model evaluation (DeepSeek V4 Pro), named vulnerabilities in ChatGPT Agent and Anthropic's Constitutional Classifiers, and states that it publishes findings from its assessments. No lab-edited summary or lab redaction is documented. That is closer to anchor 3 (publishes, redaction limited to security) than to the anchor-2 picture of broad lab redaction.

Each value is the tightest admissible cap or, with no cap, the highest admissible floor, under RULES.md. The binding signal is highlighted. A dash means no admissible signal sets a bound under the Retrieved & confirmed policy.

Funding 3/4
Anchor 3: Mostly philanthropic or public money; some lab-linked pooled funds.
evidence: tier 1 (filing/index)
Capped at 3 by caisi.10 (F.9): Public appropriation of about $10M in FY2026; free pre-deployment access from labs is in-kind. No confirmed primary-filing negative on lab money is on file.. Floors up to 3 from caisi.01, caisi.17 do not exceed the cap.
Curator: Anchor 3 pending a confirmed bounded negative (appropriations text); access from labs is in-kind.
Governance 3/4
Anchor 3: Nonprofit or public body with a COI policy.
evidence: tier 1 (filing/index)
Capped at 3 by caisi.09 (G.5): Appropriation of about $10M in FY2026 within NIST's AI line; the director resigned in July 2026 and the NIST director is acting head.; capped at 3 by caisi.11 (G.5): The CAISI director resigned on 20 July 2026, three months after appointment — the third leadership change in six months.. Floors up to 3 from caisi.15 do not exceed the cap. Not counted under this policy: caisi.03 (no confirmed source (unaudited)).
Personnel 3/4
Anchor 3: Recusal policy and disclosure of lab ties.
evidence: tier 1 (filing/index)
Floored at 3 by caisi.14 (P.5): CAISI staff are NIST federal employees bound by the criminal conflict-of-interest statute (18 U.S.C. 208) and the post-employment statute (18 U.S.C. 207), which restricts former employees for one to two years after leaving.. No admissible signal caps it.
Access depth (lab-granted) 3/4
Anchor 3: Helpful-only or weights-level access, chain of thought, logs, on-site.
evidence: tier 4 (press)
mechanism: lab-controlled
Floored at 3 by caisi.12 (A.4): Five labs now give CAISI pre-deployment access (OpenAI and Anthropic since September 2025; Google DeepMind, Microsoft and xAI from 5 May 2026), including versions with guardrails stripped back; more than 40 evaluations completed, one of a foreign model without developer cooperation.. No admissible signal caps it. Not counted under this policy: caisi.02 (no confirmed source (unaudited)).
Scope control 3/4
Anchor 3: Evaluator sets scope and can add questions.
evidence: tier 3 (self)
Capped at 3 by caisi.13 (S.4): Participation is voluntary and agreements were jointly scoped with the two founding labs; the center can only assess models developers choose to share.. Floors up to 3 from caisi.06 do not exceed the cap.
Publication rights –
No admissible evidence under the standard policy.
With leads included: 2/4
evidence: tier 4 (press)
mechanism: statutory
Unevidenced under this policy: no admissible signal sets a bound. Not counted: caisi.04 (no confirmed source (unaudited)).
Method transparency 2/4
Anchor 2: Methods described in prose.
evidence: tier 3 (self)
Capped at 2 by caisi.07 (M.2): Methods partly published through NIST; per-evaluation methods not public..
Role incompatibility 3/4
Anchor 3: Tools are open or free to the ecosystem.
evidence: tier 3 (self)
floor and cap disagree
Conflict: floor 4 from caisi.08 (X.7) against cap 3 from caisi.16 (X.6); resolved at 3 by X.6: The specific co-production rule (X.6) decides over the general legal-form floor: 3.
Resolution: X.6 decides 3. The specific co-production rule (X.6) decides over the general legal-form floor: 3.

Values under each evidence policy

DimensionLeads includedRetrieved & confirmedAgainst interestVerified spansPrimary only
Funding33333
Governance33333
Personnel33333
Access depth (lab-granted)3333–
Scope control3333–
Publication rights2––––
Method transparency2222–
Role incompatibility3333–
Score, Lab procurement– No floor triggered, 8/8– No floor triggered, 7/8– No floor triggered, 7/8– No floor triggered, 7/8– No floor triggered, 3/8
Score, Regulator or auditor– No floor triggered, 8/8– No floor triggered, 7/8– No floor triggered, 7/8– No floor triggered, 7/8– No floor triggered, 3/8
Score, Public trust– No floor triggered, 8/8– No floor triggered, 7/8– No floor triggered, 7/8– No floor triggered, 7/8– No floor triggered, 3/8
Score, Equal weights– No floor triggered, 8/8– No floor triggered, 7/8– No floor triggered, 7/8– No floor triggered, 7/8– No floor triggered, 3/8

Traced money and ties

public: 2 rows (grant $25.0M). Confirmed rows: 1 of 2 Dollar sums: confirmed + unaudited USD rows only; imported figures are not re-derived and never summed. Second hop traced for 1 of 1 sources. Ties: none within two steps recorded. Checked and not found: 3.

Ledger

Money in

Checked and not found

  • N09 Does Coefficient Giving fund US CAISI?
    Searched Coefficient grants index, 2,911 rows, snapshot 2026-09-11: no grant from Coefficient Giving in its index. Prompted by imported lead: kevinnbass ledger row EV12. importedhttps://coefficientgiving.org/grants/
  • N18 Does CAISI pay private evaluators such as METR or Apollo?
    Searched CAISI announcements and spending search, snapshot 2026-09-14: no CAISI contract to METR, Apollo, or other private evaluators found. Prompted by imported lead: kevinnbass ledger row EV12. importedhttps://www.nist.gov/caisi
  • N26 no award or agreement naming the Center for AI Standards and Innovation, CAISI, or 'AI Standards and Innovation' in USAspending's award search (FY2024 to 2026-09-15, all award types)
    Searched USAspending spending_by_award API, three keyword queries, all award types; NIST news releases on CAISI agreements, snapshot 2026-09-15: no award or agreement naming the Center for AI Standards and Innovation, CAISI, or 'AI Standards and Innovation' in USAspending's award search (FY2024 to 2026-09-15, all award types). confirmedhttps://api.usaspending.gov/api/v2/search/spending_by_award/

Funding graph, focused

Every one-way chain to a lab and to an evaluator at full strength, everything else faded. Hover any name to trace its connections; click a name to open its page.

The funding graph around US CAISI (NIST) Teal lines are money (transfers); amber lines are roles. Solid: confirmed; dashed: imported. Hover a name to trace its chains to the labs and evaluators — each chain runs one way across the columns, never doubling back; hover a line for the row. Every element is a row in data/ledger/. Labs Direct lab ties Two steps Three or more Public or unattributed Evaluators Amazon Anthropic G42 Google / Google DeepMind Meta Microsoft OpenAI Thinking Machines Lab xAI AI Safety Fund (Frontier Model Alexandr Wang Andreessen Horowitz Anthropic employees (personal Ben Mann D.E. Shaw Ventures David Farhi Dustin Moskovitz Frontier-lab employees and alu Holden Karnofsky Jaan Tallinn Jeffrey Ladish Macroscopic Ventures (formerly Miles Brundage Neil Chowdhury Nvidia OpenAI employees (personal hol OpenAI Foundation Peter Mattson Sequoia Capital Zico Kolter Adam Gleave Artificial Intelligence Underw Clement Delangue Coefficient Giving (formerly O Good Ventures Foundation Jason Droege Longview Philanthropy Marco Mascorro Paul Christiano Rajiv Dattani Survival and Flourishing Fund Conrad Stosz Dan Hendrycks Mike McCormick Alec Radford Alignment Research Center Constellation Research Center ELMA Philanthropies Emerson Collective EU budget (Digital Europe Prog Fifty Years (50Y) Founders Pledge Founders Pledge (frontier AI f Gates Foundation Halcyon Futures High Tide Foundation Hillspire (Schmidt family offi Hudson River Trading Jacob Hilton MacKenzie Scott Magarac Venture Partners Obvious Ventures Redpoint Ventures Renaissance Philanthropy Salesforce Ventures Samsung Next Schmidt Sciences Silicon Valley Community Found Skoll Foundation Snowflake Ventures Swish Ventures Sympatico Ventures The Audacious Project (TED) UK government (DSIT) US government (NIST appropriat Valhalla Foundation Vanguard Charitable Wing Venture Capital Y Combinator Andon Labs Apollo Research AVERI Center for AI Safety Epoch AI EquiStamp EU AI Office FAR.AI Gray Swan Hugging Face Open Alignment In Irregular (formerly Pattern La METR Microsoft AI Red Team MLCommons Nemesys Insights Palisade Research RAND Corporation Redwood Research SaferAI Scale AI (SEAL) SecureBio Transluce UK AI Security Institute US CAISI (NIST)