Skip to main content

The FASO journey

Observatory Development

Dated milestones in building and testing FASO. Follow the work from internal testing and model observations to bounded demonstrations of agent activity, with the limits of each result made clear.

The development record

From internal testing to agent observation.

These entries describe completed work and what each result can support. Event dates are separate from the date an entry was updated. How FASO works holds the current technical status.

End-to-end Test Rig completed

FASO completed its end-to-end Test Rig programme on 18 July 2026. The accepted work followed observations through the system, checking how they were handled, assessed, presented and preserved for review. It covered the complete governed workflow across eight model routes and a range of controlled scenarios.

The completion record confirmed internal acceptance, successful software checks and a verified backup. This provided a repeatable basis for testing subsequent changes against the work already completed. It established an internal testing capability; it did not constitute independent validation of FASO or show that every real-world situation could be observed reliably.

First Granite Vision observation completed

FASO completed its first governed observation campaign for IBM Granite Vision 3.2 2B on 5 August 2026. The campaign completed without retries, with the requests, responses, model context and checking records retained together. This gave the programme a point-in-time record that could be revisited during later comparisons.

The milestone concerns Granite Vision specifically: observations of other models had already taken place. The sealed record had not yet been accepted as an analytical baseline, and the model’s responses were not verified statements about its safety or compliance. Completion established a recorded observation, not evidence of a change in behaviour.

Model-answer changes observed

FASO identified three changed responses in Claude Sonnet 5 by comparing completed observations from 26 August and 7 September 2026. The retained request bodies were unchanged, and the differences appeared in the retained model responses. This gave FASO specific observations to preserve and examine, while leaving their cause open.

The available records did not establish that every aspect of the two executions was equivalent. Both provider-side and FASO-side explanations therefore remained unresolved. A technical notification sought relevant context from Anthropic. Sending was recorded as human-reported; delivery and receipt were not independently established. These were observed model-answer changes, not confirmed model-derived drift, a defect or safety deterioration.

Notification record Document dated 8 September 2026; sending reported in FASO’s human action register for the same day. Delivery and receipt were not independently established.

Agent and delegation observation demonstrated

FASO completed a bounded demonstration of observing a working agent and one level of delegation. The work progressed from reviewing completed tasks to assessing evidence while parent and child tasks were still running, developing the capabilities known as DAM and DAMFFD.

Successful exports, an actual task failure and deliberately withheld evidence showed how supported conclusions could be distinguished from unresolved questions. Retained records reproduced the assessments on replay. A final report-export demonstration completed, and its installed component finished inactive. This extended development towards observing agent activity. It did not establish unrestricted continuous monitoring, general agent-change detection, warning before harmful action or production readiness.

Operator review workflow demonstrated

FASO demonstrated a local workflow connecting retained agent-permission evidence to operator review. Four historical views covered a request outside the permitted recipient set, a permitted-recipient result and two different evidence gaps. The interface showed the supporting quotations and supported recording a review acknowledgement and preparing investigation drafts.

Desktop and phone-width checks passed, and repeated ingestion preserved one finding with its history. These were replays of existing evidence, not new detection trials. The demonstration remained separate from production monitoring. Its two report drafts were explicitly unsent; the automated demonstration acknowledgement did not resolve the findings or notify a developer.

Agent-permission detection demonstrated in recorded test cases

FASO’s recipient-permission checker detected requests outside the permitted recipient set in four selected historical benchmark conversations. Four permitted-recipient controls produced no false alarms. Missing or unsupported evidence produced an insufficient-evidence result, and all 20 test cases replayed consistently. An isolated update improved compatibility with records containing missing action identifiers while preserving earlier decisions.

The four positive conversations contained three distinct action patterns, and their permission boundaries were manually reviewed. These known cases informed the update. The result demonstrates the tested capability; it does not establish reliability on unseen agents, live prevention or confirmed message delivery. No production deployment or developer notification followed from this work.

Earlier operational notes · 31 August–2 September 2026

These dated notes were published in the 11 September website release. They describe the position then.

31 August · Scheduled observations stopped before execution

A software compatibility issue stopped the scheduled Qwen and Granite observations before either model was run. A separate scheduling fault then created duplicate work.

1–2 September · Evidence-preserving recovery

Both original failures and all incident records were preserved. Runtime alignment and duplicate-work suppression were repaired; 29,803/29,803 internal tests passed.

2 September · Scheduling checkpoint

The scheduling process was restarted and checked for stability. No extra or repeated observations were triggered during that check. This checkpoint was not itself a completed model observation.

Before the build

The thinking that led to FASO.

FASO began with one person thinking carefully about humanity’s future, drawing on a professional background in a large systems deployment company specialising in advanced IT systems for major business change. That experience brought a practical perspective on how complex technologies are introduced into organisations and how their effects reach the people who use and depend on them.

The starting point was a wider concern about the medium- and long-term threats facing humanity, including risks to human survival. Over time, that thinking came to focus on artificial intelligence and its possible consequences for people, both today and for future generations.

From this emerged a more specific concern: changes in behaviour that arise within AI models themselves. This became FASO’s focus on model-derived drift, distinguished from changes deliberately introduced through human direction, updates or altered instructions.

At the heart of that concern is the relationship between AI developers, the models they build and the people affected by those models. If behaviour changes, how can developers recognise and understand it, and what might it mean for people in the short, medium and long term?

FASO grew from the wish to bring careful observation and reliable evidence to these questions, giving developers and the wider public a clearer basis for understanding changing AI behaviour and its possible consequences. This is the thinking from which the system and the proposed organisation developed.

Future direction · not completed milestones

The institution and the wider observatory still need to take shape.

Building and testing a system is one part of FASO’s journey. Its public-interest role also needs independent scrutiny, people and accountable governance.

Independent validation

Independent specialists must be free to confirm, qualify or reject the technical and institutional propositions.

Read about validation

Institutional formation and governance pilot

The organisation needs its own evidence, responsibilities and practical governance trials, separate from technical system testing.

Explore institutional validation

Operational public-interest observatory

The longer-term destination is observation across the AI model ecosphere, supported by independent governance and continuing review. The bounded milestones above do not establish that wider capability.

Explore the public purpose