Framework comparison 

Digital Public Goods Standard 

The DPG Standard has nine indicators, with 9A--9C covering different harms. Its review concerns the core solution, not individual installations. The following evidence prompts apply to nr-llm's own scope:

The practical DPG guide clarifies the non-PII scope of indicator 6. This is not a reason to export credentials or bypass access restrictions.

The TYPO3 registry entry lists only the TYPO3 core repository as assessed. It explicitly excludes unlisted repositories, add-ons and features. Its recognition therefore does not establish recognition of nr-llm or a customer installation.

ALTAI 

The European Commission's ALTAI self-assessment organizes assessment into seven areas. Use the complete checklist for a specific application; the following is a starting map, not its completion.

A successful test of an approval mechanism does not demonstrate effective human oversight. A benchmark score does not demonstrate fairness across populations. Budget, token and cost records do not measure energy, water or emissions.

NIST AI RMF and Generative AI Profile 

This comparison uses AI RMF 1.0 and NIST AI 600-1, July 2024. The NIST overview describes voluntary use and ongoing revision work. Pin the edition in an assessment rather than silently adopting later changes.

The action IDs below come from the Generative AI Profile. The evidence column is this project's proposed application of a selected subset.

Benchmark revision and generator provenance are separate evidence. Record evaluator versions, grader prompts/models, thresholds, settings and sample sizes as well. A content fingerprint does not freeze an external model or prove that the benchmark measures the intended outcome.

EU transparency requirements 

Legal duties are separate from voluntary ethical assessment. Evaluate the actual system, role and use case against Article 50 and the Commission's scope guidelines.

Human review or editorial control, together with editorial responsibility, is relevant to the text-publication exception in paragraph 4. It is not a general exemption from every transparency duty.

Article 50 generally applies from 2 August 2026. The consolidated AI Act, Article 111(4) provides until 2 December 2026 for Article 50(2) compliance by providers of the specified synthetic-content systems placed on the market before 2 August 2026. This transition does not postpone all of Article 50.

The Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-generated Content was finalized on 10 June 2026. The Commission describes it as an adequate voluntary compliance tool for its marking and labelling scope. It does not replace the Act, constitute a general ethics certificate, or automatically make users of nr-llm signatories. It is distinct from the GPAI model code.

Additional references and software freedom 

The TYPO3 Open Web Manifesto provides a values basis for independence, participation and privacy. Provider choice and non-AI access paths are practical application choices to assess against those values.

The UNESCO Ethical Impact Assessment helps assess individual systems before and during use, including engagement with affected stakeholders. The OECD AI Principles provide a broader reference. Neither is a product badge supplied by this comparison.

ISO/IEC 42001:2023 addresses an organization's AI management system. nr-llm controls can contribute evidence; they cannot establish organizational certification.

The GPL licence remains unchanged. Development commitments, recommended practices and supported-use boundaries add no licence restrictions. The Open Source Definition, notably sections 3, 5 and 6, protects modification and rejects discrimination by person, group or field of use. An unevaluated use is not thereby prohibited under the software licence, and a runtime safeguard is not a prohibition on changing the software.