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 triggersNamed levels or thresholds

Criterion: The names and structure of the capability levels or thresholds the edition uses.

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-07-10

    Stated

    • Paraphrase: The edition says the left column of its three-column table sets out the capability thresholds at which heightened mitigations would be needed.

      PDF p. 4, §1 Our Recommendations for Industry-Wide Safety, first paragraph

    Note: The left column is headed “Capability or usage threshold” and has four rows with no ranking: non-novel chemical/biological weapons production; novel chemical/biological weapons production; “Misaligned AI systems in high-stakes settings”; automated R&D in key domains. Appendix B keeps “AI Safety Levels” (ASLs) only to refer to current levels of mitigation, not as a ladder of future capability levels.

    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 names two kinds of capability level: “Tracked Capability Levels (TCLs)”, at which models may pose significant risks, and “Critical Capability Levels (CCLs)”, at which they may pose severe risks.

      PDF p. 2 (printed p. 2), Overview, third paragraph, first sentence

    • Paraphrase: The edition says it sets TCLs for CBRN risk and for ML R&D and misalignment risks.

      PDF p. 4 (printed p. 4), §1.2, last paragraph, third sentence

    Note: Two tiers. CCLs: CBRN uplift level 1, Cyber uplift level 1, Harmful manipulation level 1 (exploratory), ML R&D acceleration level 1, ML R&D automation level 1. TCLs: CBRN uplift TCL, Stealth and Situational Awareness TCL. Alert thresholds are defined for CCLs (PDF p. 5); the text uses “T/CCL” for both tiers.

    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 reports its risk assessment of the model, for plausible contexts of deployment, at one of three levels: “critical”, “high”, or “moderate or lower”.

      PDF p. 8 (printed p. 8), §2.2.1 Preparedness Reports, fourth paragraph, second sentence (opening)

    Note: Table 1 (PDF p. 15) has three rows (Critical, High, Moderate or lower) with the measures 'Develop with Mitigations', 'Deploy with mitigations' and 'Deploy'. The High row describes deployment that could make a substantial contribution to a threat scenario linked to a catastrophic outcome.

    Inspect sources and checks

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-04-24

    Stated

    • Paraphrase: The edition says the framework assesses whether a tracked capability presents a risk to public safety or national security that is low, medium, high or critical.

      PDF p. 4 (printed p. 3), §2 Capabilities and risks, paragraph after the tracked-capabilities list, first sentence

    Note: Low, medium, high and critical levels are defined in Appendix I for three of the five tracked capabilities: CBRN weapons, offensive cyberoperations and advanced autonomy (PDF pp. 12–14). For the other two (loss of control, harmful manipulation), Appendix I says evaluation approaches and risk acceptance criteria are being researched (PDF p. 15). For low and medium levels the deployment requirement allows deployment under the Responsible AI Program's requirements; for high and critical, further review and mitigations are required.

    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 OpenAI has set up a system of tiers for cyber offense systemic risks, and introduces the table of those tiers.

      PDF p. 9 (printed p. 07), §2.4 Risk tiers › 'Cyber offense', introductory paragraph

    Note: Tiers 1–3 are tabulated for cyber offense, CBRN and loss of control (PDF pp. 9–12); harmful manipulation has no tier table.

    Inspect sources and checks

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2025-04-15

    Stated

    • Paraphrase: The edition defines High capability thresholds as capabilities that markedly raise existing vectors of risk for severe harm, and Critical capability thresholds as capabilities carrying a meaningful risk of a threat vector for severe harm that is qualitatively new and without ready precedent.

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

    Note: Two levels, High and Critical, are defined for each Tracked Category in Table 1 (PDF pp. 6–7).

    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 that, when deciding whether to accept residual risk, xAI reviews the risk tiers of every systemic risk category and builds in appropriate safety margins.

      PDF p. 6, first §2.3 'Systemic risk acceptance determination', second paragraph, third sentence

    Note: Risk tiers are mentioned but not named or described. The edition states no numeric thresholds; the benchmark acceptance criteria of the December 2025 edition (biology and chemistry answer rate, MASK) do not appear.

    Inspect sources and checks