In Mikita Balesni’s letter to OpenAI, three parties are addressed as holding “oversight responsibility for safety at OpenAI.” These are:

• the Safety and Security Committee (SSC),
• the Safety Advisory Group (SAG), and
• the Mission Advisory Council (MAC)

The Safety and Security Committee (SSC) is a part of the OpenAI Foundation which is tasked with populating the members of the OpenAI PBC board and has veto power/final say over safety decisions at the company, modulo a small set of the OpenAI C-suite. Paul Christiano joined the SSC in September 2026.

The Safety Advisory Group (SAG) is an internal committee of OpenAI staff that reviews frontier-risk evidence and gives recommendations on what to do to OpenAI leadership/the SSC. It has no veto power and its charter is described somewhat in the Preparedness Framework.

Understanding the governance structures at frontier labs is critical to ensuring that safety relevant decisions are made clearly, robustly and transparently. Amidst rapid capability improvements, we would like to know exactly how safety decisions are made, who makes them, and how they are enforced.

Unanswered Questions

Here are some initial open questions (some also apply to the SAG):

• What is the Mission Advisory Council? What is their purpose, what decisions are under their jurisdiction, what do they work on day-to-day.
• Who is on the Mission Advisory Council? Who are the members of this council, how are they sourced/chosen, how long are terms, who decides and overlooks this board.
• What power does the MAC hold? How do they interact with the other governance bodies at OpenAI, do they have veto power, who reports to them, when can they be overruled.

We want to learn more about the SAG and MAC in any way we can, and we welcome any information or conversations. Reach out to contact@modelconduct.org.