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

Required actions when a threshold is reachedPause, non-deployment or non-training

Criterion: A statement that development, training or deployment will stop, pause or not proceed when required safeguards are not in place or a level is reached.

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-07-10

    Stated

    • “We will require a strong argument that catastrophic risk is contained, along the lines of our recommendations for industry-wide safety (see Section 1). We will delay AI development and deployment as needed to achieve this, until and unless we no longer believe we have a significant lead.”

      PDF p. 17 (printed p. 17), Appendix A: Commitments Related to Competitors, table row 'Anthropic in the lead', Commitment column

    • “the commitments below do not preclude us from taking cautionary action, such as refraining from training or deploying models, in other circumstances.”

      PDF p. 17 (printed p. 17), Appendix A: Commitments Related to Competitors, introductory paragraph, second-to-last sentence

    Note: Delay commitments are tied to Appendix A competitor scenarios (see “Provisions conditioned on other developers”); outside them the edition says it would 'strongly consider' pausing (conditional wording, added in v3.1). No passage commits to not training or deploying a model without adequate safeguards (the dataset records that provision as not found in this edition).

    Inspect sources and checks

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-04-23

    Stated

    • “Pre-deployment review of residual risk assessment: external deployments of a model take place only after the appropriate governance function determines the residual risk to be acceptable (including a safety case where a CCL has been reached).”

      PDF p. 10 (printed p. 10), §2.1.2 Deployment Mitigations, numbered step 2, first sentence

    Note: A deployment gate: external deployment (and, under §3.1.2, high-risk internal deployment) takes place only after a governance determination that residual risk is acceptable. The misuse deployment-mitigation acceptance criterion is 'required only for external deployment, not internal deployment or further development' (PDF p. 7). No passage states that development will be put on hold.

    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

    • “Should either scenario arise, we will only continue development of the Frontier AI if our risk assessments are complete and safeguards are defined, implemented and validated to reduce risk to the moderate or lower risk threshold.”

      PDF p. 17 (printed p. 17), §3.3 Risk Thresholds, final sentence of the paragraph beginning on PDF p. 16 ('First, a Frontier AI meets the critical risk threshold…')

    Note: Applies to either critical-threshold scenario. Development and deployment are conditioned on validated mitigations rather than stopped; for cyber, a model meeting the simple-suite threshold is provisionally rated high and 'such deployment will not be implemented' until complex evaluation is complete (PDF p. 29); the change log records the critical measure changing from 'Stop' to 'Develop with Mitigations' (see “Stated changes from the previous edition”).

    Inspect sources and checks

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-04-24

    Stated

    • “If, during the implementation of this framework, we identify a risk we cannot sufficiently mitigate, we will pause development and deployment until the point at which mitigation practices evolve to meet the risk.”

      PDF p. 9 (printed p. 8), §4 Mitigations, Safety mitigations, paragraph 'Post-mitigation capability assessment and safety buffer', second sentence

    Note: The pause is tied to unmitigable risk rather than to reaching a level; high or critical models are 'subject to further review and safety and security mitigations prior to deployment' (PDF p. 7).

    Inspect sources and checks

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-05-29

    Stated

    • “If residual risks associated with the model exceed acceptable risk levels, the model is not deployed unless additional mitigation measures are implemented that sufficiently minimize risk.”

      PDF p. 13 (printed p. 11), §2.5 Safety mitigations, first paragraph, third sentence

    Note: The condition is residual risk relative to acceptable levels, not a named tier; the statement concerns deployment, not training.

    Inspect sources and checks

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2025-04-15

    Stated

    • “We do not deploy models that reach a High capability threshold until the associated risks that they pose are sufficiently minimized.”

      PDF p. 4 (printed p. 3), §1 Introduction, third bullet ('Safeguard against severe harms'), second sentence

    • “If a model under development reaches a Critical capability threshold, we also require safeguards to sufficiently minimize the associated risks during development, irrespective of deployment plans.”

      PDF p. 4 (printed p. 3), §1 Introduction, third bullet

    Note: The deployment statement is conditioned on risks being 'sufficiently minimized'. §4.3 allows adjustment of required safeguards under stated conditions (see the competitor facet).

    Inspect sources and checks

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-07-16

    Stated

    • “xAI will only proceed with the development, the making available on the market, and/or the use of the model, if the systemic risks stemming from the model are determined to be acceptable.”

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

    Inspect sources and checks