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 reachedSafeguards required

Criterion: Safeguards, mitigations or standards the edition requires (or states it will apply) for a model at or above a threshold.

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-07-10

    Stated

    • “We will maintain or improve on our ASL-3 protections, which include classifier guards at least as robust as our initial Constitutional Classifiers”

      PDF p. 6, §1, threshold table, row 'Non-novel chemical/biological weapons production', middle column ('Mitigations—our plan as a company')

    Note: Company plans (middle column) are separated from industry-wide recommendations (right column), which the edition says it cannot unilaterally and unconditionally commit to. For the novel chemical/biological row the company column extends protections at least as strong as ASL-3 to more use cases; for the misaligned AI systems in high-stakes settings and Automated R&D rows it lists Risk Report disclosure, security and alignment projects rather than a named standard.

    Inspect sources and checks

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-04-23

    Stated

    • “The following mitigation process for external deployments will be applied to models reaching a misuse T/CCL”

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

    • “We recommend a security level for each CCL”

      PDF p. 11 (printed p. 11), §2.2 Misuse Capability Levels, first paragraph, third sentence

    Note: Recommended security levels: 'Security level 2+' (defined on PDF p. 9 as RAND SL2 plus insider-threat and non-state-actor measures) for CBRN, cyber and harmful manipulation CCLs; 3 and 4 for ML R&D CCLs. A parallel deployment process applies to ML R&D and Misalignment T/CCLs (§3.1.2). For the Stealth and Situational Awareness TCL, safeguards such as chain-of-thought monitoring are applied if residual risk from internal deployment is deemed unacceptable (PDF p. 14).

    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

    • “Proceed with deployment of the Frontier AI only if sufficient mitigations are defined, implemented and validated to reduce risk to that of a moderate or lower model.”

      PDF p. 15 (printed p. 15), §3.3 Risk Thresholds, Table 1, High row, Measures column, under the label 'Deploy with mitigations'

    Note: Table 1 also assigns security measures: heightened access controls to model weights for High and Critical (for Critical 'as overseen by the Chief AI Officer and/or Director of Alignment and Risk … insofar as is technically feasible and commercially practicable').

    Inspect sources and checks

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-04-24

    Stated

    • “Models posing high-risk on one or more tracked high-risk capability will be subject to security measures protective against most cybercrime groups and insider threats.”

      PDF p. 8 (printed p. 7), §4 Mitigations, Security measures, fourth paragraph, first sentence

    Note: Safety mitigations are applied 'so that the model’s risk level remains at low or medium once mitigations have been applied' (PDF p. 8); critical-risk models are subject to 'the highest level of security safeguards' (PDF p. 8).

    Inspect sources and checks

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-05-29

    Stated

    • “OpenAI tailors these measures to the capability of a model and its deployment, as appropriate, to mitigate systemic risks to acceptable levels.”

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

    Note: No tier-by-tier safeguard requirements are stated; safeguards are tied to residual risk being within acceptable levels. Security mitigations are listed in §3 (PDF pp. 16–17).

    Inspect sources and checks

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2025-04-15

    Stated

    • “Covered systems that cross this capability threshold are required to have robust and effective safeguards … before they are deployed and appropriate security controls as they are developed.”

      PDF p. 5 (printed p. 4), §2.2 Tracked Categories, first paragraph, sentence following the definition of High capability thresholds

    Note: Refers to High thresholds. Table 1 lists risk-specific safeguard guidelines, and Appendix C gives illustrative safeguards and the security practices required for High capability models (PDF pp. 17–22).

    Inspect sources and checks

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-07-16

    Stated, partly

    • “xAI implements appropriate safety mitigations to address the systemic risks stemming from our models”

      PDF p. 6, second §2.3 'Safety mitigations', first sentence (opening)

    • “xAI will maintain a documented Security Goal that identifies the threat actors against which mitigations are designed to protect against, including sophisticated non-state actors, insider threats, state-sponsored actors and other foreseeable actors.”

      PDF p. 7 (no printed page numbers), §2.4 Security mitigations, first paragraph, first sentence

    Note: Mitigations are not keyed to named thresholds; the closest threshold-linked provision is the risk-acceptance condition quoted under “Pause, non-deployment or non-training”. CBRN-specific heightened safeguards are triggered by prompts demonstrating intent (PDF p. 3).

    Inspect sources and checks