New York RAISE Act: Responsible AI Safety and Education Act — vendor disclosure form

1. Vendor identification

2. AI system identification

3. Provision-specific questions

1. Foundation Models / GPAI. Does the offered system meet the threshold for a general-purpose / foundation model under New York RAISE Act: Responsible AI Safety and Education Act (N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1420(6) defines 'frontier model' (>10^26 FLOP, >$100M compute) + § 1421 imposes operative pre-deployment duties on large frontier-model developers)? If yes, identify the specific obligations you will satisfy and the evidence you will provide.

   (Cite: N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1420(6) defines 'frontier model' (>10^26 FLOP, >$100M compute) + § 1421 imposes operative pre-deployment duties on large frontier-model developers)

2. Transparency Obligations. Provide the documentation required under the transparency obligations of New York RAISE Act: Responsible AI Safety and Education Act (N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1421(1)(C) — a large developer must conspicuously publish (with appropriate redactions) its written safety and security protocol and transmit a copy to the attorney general) — including (as applicable) model card, system card, training-data summary, evaluation results, and known limitations.

   (Cite: N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1421(1)(C) — a large developer must conspicuously publish (with appropriate redactions) its written safety and security protocol and transmit a copy to the attorney general)

3. Catastrophic & Existential Risk. Has the offered system been evaluated against catastrophic-risk thresholds (e.g., CBRN information uplift, autonomous replication) consistent with New York RAISE Act: Responsible AI Safety and Education Act (N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1421(1) requires a large developer to implement and conspicuously publish a written safety and security protocol governing the risk of 'critical harm' from its frontier models, and § 1421(4) requires disclosure of safety incidents within 72 hours; § 1420(7) defines critical harm (100+ deaths/serious injuries or $1B damage via CBRN weapons or autonomous model conduct). NOTE: the floor-text § 1421(2) deployment PROHIBITION was struck by the chapter amendment enacted Mar. 27, 2026 (S8828/A9449), which reoriented the Act to a transparency-and-reporting regime; this cell tracks the RETAINED safety-protocol + incident-reporting duties, not a deployment ban.)? Provide the evaluation report or its public-disclosure equivalent.

   (Cite: N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 1421(1) requires a large developer to implement and conspicuously publish a written safety and security protocol governing the risk of 'critical harm' from its frontier models, and § 1421(4) requires disclosure of safety incidents within 72 hours; § 1420(7) defines critical harm (100+ deaths/serious injuries or $1B damage via CBRN weapons or autonomous model conduct). NOTE: the floor-text § 1421(2) deployment PROHIBITION was struck by the chapter amendment enacted Mar. 27, 2026 (S8828/A9449), which reoriented the Act to a transparency-and-reporting regime; this cell tracks the RETAINED safety-protocol + incident-reporting duties, not a deployment ban.)

4. Documentation enclosures expected

Tick each enclosure attached to the vendor response. Missing enclosures should be explained in the “Variances” field below.

• Copies of submitted regulatory reports / registrations
• Safety / capability evaluation results
• Transparency documentation (per-instrument schema)
• Vendor company registration + insurance certificates
• Sub-processor / supply-chain list (including model upstream)

5. Vendor attestation

The undersigned, on behalf of the vendor, attests that the disclosures above are true and complete to the best of their knowledge at the date signed, and undertakes to notify the buyer in writing within 30 days of any material change to those disclosures.