The White House and Anthropic have transitioned from regulatory friction to collaborative standards-setting, developing a formal framework to evaluate security vulnerabilities in advanced artificial intelligence models. The Washington-based negotiations aim to establish uniform benchmarks for assessing jailbreak incidents and defining the criteria for potential government intervention in AI development. The discussions were triggered by recent U.S. export controls that restricted international access to Anthropic’s Fable 5 and Mythos 5 models following a suspected security flaw. Administration officials and Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei initially disputed the vulnerability’s severity, highlighting a systemic gap in how agencies triage emerging AI risks. Acknowledging that no model can be entirely immune to exploitation, both parties have shifted focus toward measurable safety metrics rather than immediate punitive action. Anthropic’s delegation, led by cofounder Tom Brown and public policy head Sarah Heck, engaged in sustained talks with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross. After an initial impasse, weekend communications and subsequent in-person meetings at the Commerce Department have advanced the agenda toward technical consensus. The proposed evaluation framework will standardize how agencies quantify future incidents, measuring the extent of safeguard circumvention, the specific capabilities exposed, and the practical consequences of any breach. This regulatory pivot reflects broader consensus discussions from the recent G7 summit in France, where policymakers and industry leaders stressed the need for clear, interoperable safety standards. Anthropic’s approach, supported by peer AI firms, emphasizes that transparent risk-assessment protocols will facilitate responsible innovation while protecting national and economic security. Although export restrictions on the affected models remain active, the administration’s willingness to pursue a technical standards process indicates substantive progress in AI governance negotiations. Both sides have declined to issue public commentary on the ongoing talks.