# Guidelight Grades Frontier Labs on Control — Nobody Above a C+

Times of AI Desk · 2026-08-18 · Policy

[https://timesof.ai/2026/08/guidelight-frontier-lab-control-assessment](https://timesof.ai/2026/08/guidelight-frontier-lab-control-assessment)

> Guidelight AI Standards graded Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, xAI, and Meta on six rogue-model control practices. No lab scored above 3/5 on any practice. Anthropic and OpenAI tied at C+ (2.50); Google D+; xAI D−; Meta F. Anthropic got a zero on containment despite the safety brand.

The industry is better at **spotting** misbehavior than at **stopping** it. After a month of eval-breakout disclosures, an independent grader put **containment plans** at the bottom of the sheet — and gave **Anthropic a zero** on that cell despite the safety brand.

**Guidelight AI Standards**, a nonprofit founded by former OpenAI safety leads **Page Hedley** and **Steven Adler**, published its first **Control** scorecard (Adler: “launching today”). It grades **Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, xAI, and Meta** on six public practices: logging, monitor efficacy, gated actions, circuit breaking, third-party review, and a containment plan. **No company scored above 3/5** (“substantial partial”) on any practice. Overall letter grades are the average of the six 0–5 scores. **TechCrunch** amplified the containment finding on **August 22**; that is coverage, not a second ship.

## The grades (public evidence through Aug 18)

| Lab | Overall | Containment plan | Notes from Guidelight |
|-----|---------|------------------|------------------------|
| **Anthropic** | **C+ (2.50)** | **0** | Strongest on logging / monitor / gated actions / circuit-breaking (3s); **no public containment protocol** even in the Aug 14 Risk Report |
| **OpenAI** | **C+ (2.50)** | **3** | Tied overall; **led containment** (has paused internal workloads after incidents and described resume steps) |
| **Google** | **D+ (1.50)** | **2** | **AI Control Roadmap** (arXiv) is the most specific forward plan; public implementation still limited |
| **xAI** | **D− (0.83)** | **1** | Only lab that **did not participate** in METR’s Frontier Risk Report; limited public controls |
| **Meta** | **F (0.67)** | **0** | Weakest overall; METR disclosures are the main public window |

Scoring used **only public** materials (system cards, frameworks, risk reports, blogs, third-party write-ups). Two staff scored independently; companies could flag errors. A weak score can mean **missing disclosure**, not proven absence of internal controls. Not a dual-file of Anthropic’s Aug 14 Risk Report, OpenAI’s Aug 7 Astra / Aug 18 pacing posts, or METR’s May report — this is the first **cross-lab control report card**.

## Limits

- Public-evidence only; weak scores can be disclosure gaps.
- TechCrunch Aug 22 is amplification, not a new assessment.
- Whether labs answer with public kill-switch protocols is open.

## Sources

- [Guidelight: Control assessment of frontier AI companies (August 2026; info through Aug 18)](https://guidelight.ai/blog/control-assessment-august-2026)
- [Steven Adler: Guidelight’s first scorecard launching today (August 18, 2026)](https://x.com/sjgadler/status/2089828449049522664)
- [The Decoder: No AI company fully applies basic control measures (August 19, 2026)](https://the-decoder.com/ai-labs-are-failing-to-keep-their-own-systems-in-check/)
- [TechCrunch: Frontier AI labs still won’t say how they’d contain a rogue model (August 22, 2026)](https://techcrunch.com/2026/08/22/frontier-ai-labs-still-wont-say-how-theyd-contain-a-rogue-model/)
- Times of AI: `anthropic-august-2026-risk-report` (August 14); `openai-pacing-cyber-critical-rl-pause` (August 18)