selekoa

A documentary history of machine intelligence.

Found and cross-checked by machines · How this works →

Comparison · 18 questions · 7 frameworks

Compare frameworks

What does each developer’s safety framework say on the same questions, edition by edition?

Each row is one question, worded so that it fits every framework. Each column is one framework, showing its latest edition unless you choose another. A cell gives what that edition says on the question, with the page, or records that no passage was found in a stated search. Six questions give the edition’s own words; the other twelve give Selekoa’s paraphrase, marked as such. The questions are Selekoa’s. An edition’s own terms, such as “ASL” or “Critical Capability Level”, appear only in quotation marks.

A status records what an edition states. It does not show implementation, compliance or effectiveness, and a shared row does not make two provisions equivalent.

Download every cell as CSV

What the statuses mean

Stated
A passage meets the question’s criterion as worded, however conditional or narrow its scope. The condition or scope is in the note.
Stated, partly
A passage has what the criterion asks for, but in a weaker form than the criterion’s own words: for example, no named person or body where the question asks for one, or a “may” where it asks for a statement that something will happen.
Not found in the recorded search
No passage meeting the criterion was found. The record lists the sections read, the search terms and every passage set aside, with the reason. It does not show that the developer lacks the practice, or that a provision was deleted.
Does not apply
The question does not apply: the edition is the first in its framework, so there is no earlier edition to change from.
Limits of this comparison
  • Conditions that matter are in each cell’s note. A “stated” cell can carry conditions as important as those of a “stated, partly” one.
  • The page compares and does not rank. There are no scores or totals, and columns are in a fixed order.
  • Six questions, on required actions, who decides and exceptions, quote the edition. The other twelve, on risk domains, thresholds, evaluation timing, reporting and revision, give a paraphrase with the page, because quoting them as well would exceed Selekoa’s quotation limit for most editions. A paraphrase states what the passage says, in other words; read the edition at that page before relying on it.
  • Passages were selected, checked and placed under each question by machine, and checked by a reviewer from a different model family. The maintainer decided the borderline cases.
Editions shown: the latest of each framework
Edition shown for each framework

Risk domains coveredPersuasion or manipulation

Criterion: The edition names persuasion or manipulation of people as a tracked domain.

  1. Anthropic · Responsible Scaling Policyv3.4 · effective 2026-07-08

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-07-10

    Not found in the recorded search

    Open the search record

  2. Google DeepMind · Frontier Safety Frameworkv3.1 · published 2026-04-17

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-04-23

    Stated

    • Paraphrase: The edition says Google DeepMind has determined, on early research, that significant or severe risks from future models may be likeliest in CBRN, cyber, harmful manipulation, and machine learning R&D and misalignment.

      PDF p. 5 (printed p. 5), §1.3.1 Risk Identification, fourth sentence

    • Paraphrase: A note on harmful manipulation says both the CCL and the assessment of risk in this domain are exploratory and open to further research.

      PDF p. 12 (printed p. 12), §2.2.3 Harmful Manipulation, Note, second sentence

    Note: One CCL marked exploratory: Harmful manipulation level 1 (Table 2.2.3.a, PDF p. 12).

    Inspect sources and checks

  3. Meta · Frontier AI / Advanced AI Scaling Frameworkv2.0 · published 2026-04-08

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-04-08

    Not found in the recorded search

    Open the search record

  4. Microsoft · Frontier Governance FrameworkFeb 2026 · revised 2026-02

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-04-24

    Stated

    • Paraphrase: The edition lists “Harmful manipulation” as a tracked high-risk capability: a model's ability to distort human behaviour or beliefs strategically and at scale.

      PDF p. 4 (printed p. 3), §2 Capabilities and risks, 'Tracked high-risk capabilities', fifth bullet

    Note: Named as a tracked high-risk capability. No thresholds are set: Appendix I says Microsoft is researching evaluation approaches and risk acceptance criteria for manipulation risk (PDF p. 15). Appendix I also says Microsoft prohibits use of its generative AI services in ways that include intentionally manipulating users' behaviour (PDF p. 15).

    Inspect sources and checks

  5. OpenAI · Frontier Governance FrameworkMay 2026 edition · published 2026-05-28

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-05-29

    Stated

    • Paraphrase: The edition says its processes for assessing and mitigating systemic risk span key risk categories, among them “cybersecurity”, “CBRN” (chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear), “harmful manipulation” and “loss of control risks”.

      PDF p. 3 (printed p. 01), §1 Introduction, second paragraph, second sentence

    • Paraphrase: The edition says OpenAI's approach to harmful manipulation is still exploratory.

      PDF p. 11 (printed p. 09), §2.4 Risk tiers › 'Harmful manipulation', first sentence

    Note: Named as one of the key risk categories and given its own section under §2.4 Risk tiers, without a tier table; the section calls the approach exploratory and says the tier needs more research and may change (PDF p. 11). §2.2 says risks are currently estimated for three categories (CBRN, cyber offense, loss of control), and that an approach for assessing harmful manipulation is at an early stage (PDF p. 7).

    Inspect sources and checks

  6. OpenAI · Preparedness FrameworkVersion 2 · published 2025-04-15

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2025-04-15

    Stated, partly

    • Paraphrase: The edition states that risks in the Persuasion category do not meet its criteria for inclusion in the Framework.

      PDF p. 9 (printed p. 8), §2.3, box 'Changes to Tracked Categories in version 2', 'Persuasion' paragraph, final sentence

    Note: Named only as excluded: the passage states that persuasion risks fall outside the Framework's criteria, and the same paragraph describes other measures outside the Framework (the Model Spec, misuse monitoring).

    Inspect sources and checks

  7. xAI · Frontier AI FrameworkJune 2026 edition · effective 2026-06-30

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-07-16

    Stated

    • Paraphrase: The edition names four primary risk domains, those it considers most likely to lead to significant or severe outcomes in present and future systems: “CBRN Risks”, “Offensive Cybersecurity Risks”, “Loss of Control Risks” and “Harmful Manipulation Risks”.

      PDF p. 2, §2.1 Risk Identification, third paragraph, first sentence

    • Paraphrase: The edition refers to risks that models with high manipulative capabilities could be misused in a way that could reasonably cause large-scale harm.

      PDF p. 1, §1 Introduction, third paragraph, fourth sentence

    Note: Named as “Harmful Manipulation Risks” (footnote 1 attributes the term to the EU General-Purpose AI Code of Practice); unlike the other three domains it has no dedicated subsection in §2.1.

    Inspect sources and checks