Skip to content
Sprint projectFeb 2, 2026India

RED30 AI Red Lines Tracker: A Comprehensive Technical Infrastructure for Monitoring Frontier Model Proximity to Critical Safety Thresholds

Kunal Singh, Rujuta Karekar, Aman Agarwal · Team RED3

Submitted to The Technical AI Governance Challenge. Sprint projects are early-stage work by participants, not Apart Research publications.

Read the report

Report: RED30 AI Red Lines Tracker: A Comprehensive Technical Infrastructure for Monitoring Frontier Model Proximity to Critical Safety Thresholds

Recording (opens in new tab)Code (opens in new tab)More on ai-red-lines-tracker-2026.vercel.app (opens in new tab)
Share

Each frontier developer publishes self-assessments under its own risk framework: OpenAI’s Preparedness Framework, Anthropic’s Responsible Scaling Policy, Google DeepMind’s Frontier Safety Framework, and etc. However, these assessments remain disconnected, lack a basis tracking for dangerous capabilities, and are rarely presented in a way that allows direct cross-lab comparison or contextualization with compute infrastructure.

We present a web-based dashboard “AI Red Lines Tracker” to visually track global AI infrastructure and risk landscape in terms of frontier lab’s risk analysis, AI RnD acceleration tracker, current proximity to thresholds, areas of convergence and divergence and also tracking training compute, datacentres, compute concentration across frontier labs.

We also propose RED30, a global baseline framework that defines 30 minimum, non-negotiable safety and ethical boundaries that frontier AI models must not cross. These indicators are derived directly from binding international law, human rights conventions, data protection regulations, criminal law statutes and consumer protection frameworks. We systematically analyse all frontier models with this RED30 framework and present the findings.

https://ai-red-lines-tracker-2026.vercel.app/

Our main contributions are: 1. A visually interactive dashboard showing, AI red lines analysis, frontier lab models risk analysis, compute resources and infrastructure analysis and AI incidents dashboard

2. RED 30, a standardized framework of 30 universal AI red line indicators, organized into 4 categories: Critical Harm (8), Systemic Harm (8), Individual Harm (8), Emerging Standards (6). These indicators serve as priority indicators to measure models risks across categories derived from international regulatory frameworks around the world

3. AI R&D Tracker showing cross labs comparison to critical thresholds with METR benchmark integrations

4. 16 frontier model risk analysis across 4 major labs and processed 24 model system cards to show model risk thresholds across CBRN domains.

5. Compute Infrastructure dashboard showcasing 20 frontier models training compute (2023-2026), mapping 18 major data centres with 2620 GW global capacity and list of EU AI Act compliant models based on FLOP thresholds.

6. Aggregated 354 frontier-model-relevant incidents from AI Incident Database, categorized incidents by organization and harm types: 15 Offenses, 199 Misuses, 43 Biases, 97 Harmful Outputs

Reviews

Judging this Sprint?

Review this project

Your public critique appears on this page without your name. Your private critique is not published; only the Apart team reads it. If you agree below, we share your review with grantmaking.ai (opens in new tab) and the Transformative AI Fund so strong projects can be funded.

Not shown on this page.

Shown on this page, without your name.

Only the Apart team reads this, and funders if you agree below.

Share my name publicly on grantmaking.ai *
Share my private critique with funders *

How much would this matter for AI safety if it worked? How innovative is it? For scores of 4-5: is this actually new to the field, or replicating recent work?

Scoring guide
  1. 1Negligible. No clear problem addressed, or no meaningful novelty.
  2. 2Limited. Addresses a real problem but with a generic or well-trodden approach. Incremental at best.
  3. 3Moderate. Clear problem with a reasonable approach; some novelty in framing or method beyond routine application of existing tools.
  4. 4Significant. Important problem with an original approach, or identifies a neglected problem area. A valuable contribution others could build on.
  5. 5Exceptional. Tackles a critical AI safety problem with a genuinely novel approach, or opens a new research direction. Clear theory of change. You'd be excited to share this with researchers in the area.

How sound are methodology, implementation, and findings?

Scoring guide
  1. 1Seriously flawed. Methodology broken, results uninterpretable, or implementation doesn't work.
  2. 2Weak. Approach has significant gaps: missing validation, flawed experimental design, or incomplete implementation.
  3. 3Competent. Technically solid given the short duration. Methodology makes sense, results are interpretable, limitations acknowledged, work builds toward clear conclusions.
  4. 4Strong. Thorough methodology with convincing validation. Results clearly support conclusions. Immediately useful for future work.
  5. 5Exceptional. Ambitious scope executed rigorously. Surprising findings, novel methods, or unusually robust validation.

How clearly are work, findings, and impact potential communicated?

Scoring guide
  1. 1Incomprehensible. Cannot determine what the project is actually claiming or doing.
  2. 2Hard to follow. Key information buried, missing, or diluted by excessive length. Significant effort to extract main points.
  3. 3Clear enough. Can understand the problem, approach, and results without undue effort. Core content clearly present: problem, method, findings, limitations.
  4. 4Well presented. Easy to follow, well-structured, appropriate level of detail. Target audience would get it quickly.
  5. 5Exceptionally clear. A pleasure to read. Complex ideas made accessible. Could serve as a model for how to present this type of work.

  1. Good job overall with a clear presentation but work is mostly organizing what was already been done by different labs. Can be useful however.

  2. The dashboard does a nice job consolidating scattered risk data from multiple labs into a single visual interface! I would focus on deepening the RED30 framework to strengthen the work.

Cite this project

@misc{singh2026red30,
  title = {{RED30 AI Red Lines Tracker: A Comprehensive Technical Infrastructure for Monitoring Frontier Model Proximity to Critical Safety Thresholds}},
  author = {Kunal Singh and Rujuta Karekar and Aman Agarwal},
  year = {2026},
  month = feb,
  note = {Submitted to The Technical AI Governance Challenge, an Apart Research Sprint},
  howpublished = {\url{https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/red30-ai-red-lines-tracker-a-comprehensive-technical-infrastructure-for-monitoring-frontier-model-proximity-to-critical-safety-thresholds-jole}},
  url = {https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/red30-ai-red-lines-tracker-a-comprehensive-technical-infrastructure-for-monitoring-frontier-model-proximity-to-critical-safety-thresholds-jole}
}

Build something like this at the next Sprint

AI Collusion Research Sprint · Oct 23 - 25, 2026