One Incident, Four Regimes: An Evidence-Sufficient Request for Information, a Filed Critical Safety Incident Report, and Two Fixes to the AI Kill Switch Act
Travis Gilly
Four regimes reach the July 2026 OpenAI evaluation escape and disagree on what counts, how fast, to whom, and on what evidence. This report produces three things a regulator could use with light edits. First, a request for information under Article 91 of the EU AI Act, drafted through the scientific panel route so the necessity test sits on its face, fifteen items in five clusters keyed to Articles 53 and 55 and the Code of Practice, extended across California, New York, and the developer's own Preparedness Framework, with a line under every item stating what answer would settle it and what answer would not. Second, a critical safety incident report actually filed with Cal OES on 13 September 2026 through the public channel SB 53 requires, report number P-20260913-00001, published in full and diffed field by field against the contents the Code requires of a provider. Third, amendment text for the AI Kill Switch Act, whose definitions exclude this incident three times over. Thresholds, clocks, and start dates are tabulated for all four regimes.
No reviews are available yet
Cite this work
@misc {
title={
(HckPrj) One Incident, Four Regimes: An Evidence-Sufficient Request for Information, a Filed Critical Safety Incident Report, and Two Fixes to the AI Kill Switch Act
},
author={
Travis Gilly
},
date={
},
organization={Apart Research},
note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},
howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}
}


