AI Red Team Engineering notes, research references, and field notes on AI systems, responsible AI, governance, and compliance.
Global search

Search AI Red Team

Search across the complete knowledge base.

Enter at least two characters to begin.
↑↓ select Enter open Browse the full research archive
OECD.AI Wonk · July 16, 2026

HAIP is transforming transparency from a compliance burden to a competitive advantage

analysis AI ComplianceAgent Security
Why it matters

Salesforce’s Paula Goldman argues on the OECD.AI blog that the Hiroshima AI Process Reporting Framework can give organizations a common language for public AI-risk disclosures across jurisdictions and the expanding agentic-AI value chain.

My takeaway: This is an industry viewpoint rather than an OECD policy position. The practical value is a reusable reporting taxonomy: map each public commitment to an owner, evidence source, model or agent scope, update cadence, and jurisdiction-specific obligation.
Keep exploring

More curated notes connected through AI Compliance and Agent Security.

OpenAI News · framework

OpenAI’s Frontier Governance Framework

OpenAI's 22-page Frontier Governance Framework maps its frontier-model processes to California's Transparency in Frontier AI Act and the EU AI Act's general-purpose AI code. It documents lifecycle risk assessment, cyber-offense and other risk tiers, mitigation and residual-risk decisions, critical-incident handling, security risk management, model reporting, external review, responsibility allocation, and change control.

OpenAI News · framework

Cybersecurity in the Intelligence Age

OpenAI proposes a five-pillar strategy for AI-enabled cyber defense: tiered access for trusted defenders, faster government-industry coordination, stronger protection of frontier models and infrastructure, risk-scaled deployment monitoring, and broader defensive support for individuals and small organizations.

OWASP GenAI Security Project · guide

OWASP Top 10 for Agentic Applications for 2026

OWASP's community guide organizes agentic-system risk into ten categories, including goal hijacking, tool misuse, identity and privilege abuse, memory poisoning, insecure inter-agent communication, cascading failures, and rogue-agent behavior. It provides a shared taxonomy and mitigation starting point rather than a certification checklist or evidence that a deployed system is secure.