The document states that GPT-5.5 Pro safety evaluations are generally based on GPT-5.5 evaluation results used as proxies, with separate evaluation conducted only where OpenAI judges that the parallel test-time compute setting could materially affect risk or safeguard posture.
This analysis describes what OpenAI's agreement states, permits, or reserves. It does not constitute a legal determination about enforceability. Regulatory applicability and practical outcomes may vary by jurisdiction, enforcement context, and individual circumstances. Read our methodology
This provision establishes that GPT-5.5 Pro, a distinct product configuration, relies primarily on safety evaluations conducted for a different operational setting. Compliance teams assessing AI model governance should evaluate whether this proxy methodology meets the independent evaluation expectations of applicable frameworks, particularly for higher-compute configurations that may exhibit different capability profiles.
Interpretive note: The document does not specify which capability categories or risk domains triggered separate GPT-5.5 Pro evaluation, limiting assessment of the proxy methodology's adequacy for specific deployment contexts.
Under these terms, users of GPT-5.5 Pro operate under a safety posture that is primarily informed by evaluations conducted on GPT-5.5 rather than on GPT-5.5 Pro directly, except in cases where OpenAI determines the compute setting materially affects risk. The document does not specify which capability categories triggered separate GPT-5.5 Pro evaluation.
Cross-platform context
See how other platforms handle GPT-5.5 Pro Proxy Safety Evaluation Methodology and similar clauses.
Compare across platforms →"We generally treat GPT‑5.5's safety results as strong proxies for GPT‑5.5 Pro, which is the same underlying model using a setting that makes use of parallel test time compute. As noted below, we separately evaluate GPT‑5.5 Pro in certain cases because we judge that the setting could materially impact the relevant risks or appropriate safeguards posture.Excerpt from OpenAI's GPT-5.5 System Card
(1) REGULATORY LANDSCAPE: The proxy evaluation methodology engages with EU AI Act conformity assessment requirements, which may require that safety evaluations reflect the actual operational configuration of the deployed system.
Enforcement risk, jurisdiction flags, contract triggers, and due diligence action items.
Get the research letter
Companies change their terms quietly. We read every version and catch what actually changed. One email a week on the changes that matter and what they mean.
This provision establishes that GPT-5.5 Pro, a distinct product configuration, relies primarily on safety evaluations conducted for a different operational setting. Compliance teams assessing AI model governance should evaluate whether this proxy methodology meets the independent evaluation expectations of applicable frameworks, particularly for higher-compute configurations that may exhibit different capability profiles.
Under these terms, users of GPT-5.5 Pro operate under a safety posture that is primarily informed by evaluations conducted on GPT-5.5 rather than on GPT-5.5 Pro directly, except in cases where OpenAI determines the compute setting materially affects risk. The document does not specify which capability categories triggered separate GPT-5.5 Pro evaluation.
No. ConductAtlas is an independent monitoring service. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by OpenAI.