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

Thresholds and triggersHow a threshold is defined

Criterion: The edition’s general definition of what reaching a threshold means (for example uplift relative to a baseline, or a capability that could cause severe harm).

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-07-10

    Stated, partly

    • Paraphrase: The edition says Anthropic cannot yet give detailed advance specifics of which evaluations will decide whether a risk threshold has been passed.

      PDF p. 4, §1, third paragraph, first sentence

    • Paraphrase: Anthropic would count scenario (2) as met where it observes or expects aggregate AI progress at double both the expected rate and the fastest “extended progress” rate without major AI contributions to AI R&D, and the doubling is plausibly “substantially attributable” to R&D automation, such that further acceleration seems likely.

      PDF pp. 9–10, §1, threshold table, row 'Automated R&D in key domains', left column, paragraph beginning 'We would consider scenario (2)', conditions (a) and (b), and footnote 9

    Note: No general definition of reaching a threshold is given: each row describes a capability at which heightened mitigations would be needed. Only the Automated R&D row is operationalized, with two alternative scenarios. v3.4 measures the doubling against both the expected rate and the fastest extended rate observed.

    Inspect sources and checks

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-04-23

    Stated

    • Paraphrase: The edition defines CCLs as levels of capability at which frontier AI models or systems, absent mitigations, may present a heightened risk of severe harm.

      PDF p. 4 (printed p. 4), §1.2, first paragraph, second sentence

    • Paraphrase: The glossary defines TCLs as levels of capability at which, without mitigations, such models or systems may present a heightened risk of harm that is significant but not severe.

      PDF p. 18, glossary, entry for Tracked Capability Levels

    Note: Footnote 8 (PDF p. 11) says that in misuse T/CCLs “additional” harm is intended to mean harm beyond a baseline in which generative AI is absent.

    Inspect sources and checks

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-04-08

    Stated

    • Paraphrase: The edition says Meta defines its thresholds by how far Frontier AI would make a substantial contribution to carrying out any identified threat scenario that could on its own lead to a catastrophic outcome.

      PDF p. 3 (printed p. 3), §1.1 Scope, third paragraph, first sentence (opening)

    Note: Appendix I defines 'substantially contribute' as the model being a material factor in an outcome (PDF p. 42). The critical threshold also covers a model that could be the unique enabler of a threat scenario whose risk cannot be mitigated (PDF p. 26); 'uniquely enabling' is defined as the model being an essential controlling factor (PDF p. 42).

    Inspect sources and checks

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-04-24

    Stated, partly

    • Paraphrase: In the High row of the CBRN capability table, the edition describes the threshold as a model that meaningfully increases the ability of an expert (with PhD-level education in a related field) to develop a novel CBRN threat and deliver it.

      PDF p. 12 (printed p. 11), Appendix I – Capability thresholds, CBRN weapons table, High row, Capability threshold column (first statement)

    Note: No single general definition of reaching a threshold; the passage is the High row of the CBRN table, one example. Thresholds are qualitative descriptions per capability (§3, PDF p. 6; Appendix I). CBRN and cyber levels are framed as uplift to actors of a given skill; autonomy levels by task length and automation of AI research and development.

    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 systemic risks are estimated, where appropriate and practicable, with risk tiers that describe in concrete terms what an AI system might help someone do, or might do itself, that could meaningfully increase the risk of severe harm.

      PDF p. 7 (printed p. 05), §2.2 Systemic risk analysis

    Note: Tiers are defined per risk category in §2.4 (PDF pp. 9–12). Separately, §2.1 defines systemic risk by severity, including a model materially contributing to over 50 fatalities or $1 billion in property damage or losses from a single incident (PDF p. 5).

    Inspect sources and checks

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2025-04-15

    Stated

    • Paraphrase: The edition says capability thresholds describe in concrete terms what an AI system might help someone do, or might do itself, that could meaningfully increase the risk of severe harm.

      PDF p. 5 (printed p. 4), §2.2 Tracked Categories, first paragraph, third sentence

    Inspect sources and checks

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-07-16

    Stated, partly

    • Paraphrase: The edition says xAI applies systemic risk acceptance criteria, with a margin of security, to every identified risk, to decide whether each such risk, and systemic risk overall, is acceptable.

      PDF p. 5, first §2.3 'Systemic risk acceptance determination', first sentence, up to 'acceptable'

    Note: The edition defines acceptability of systemic risk rather than a capability threshold; the acceptance criteria themselves are not stated. The edition says residual risk takes account of the scale and probability of harm (PDF p. 6).

    Inspect sources and checks