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

Who decidesDetermination of capability or safeguard adequacy

Criterion: The person, office or body the edition names as making or approving the determination that a threshold is reached, that safeguards are adequate, or that a model may be deployed.

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-07-10

    Stated

    • “CEO and RSO will make the ultimate determination regarding the adequacy of the risk assessment and any downstream deployment or development plans.”

      PDF p. 13, §3.4 Procedures, item 3 ('Executive approval'), second sentence

    Note: The determination is tied to approval of a Risk Report rather than to a per-threshold capability or safeguards determination. The RSO's duties also include approving relevant model development or deployment decisions (§4, item 1).

    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: The 'appropriate governance function' is not named. The same function may also exempt low-risk external deployments from a critical capability assessment (see “Other exceptions or discretion”).

    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

    • “Based on this pre-mitigation risk assessment, the Chief AI Officer and Director of Alignment and Risk2 will assign a risk threshold.”

      PDF p. 6 (printed p. 6), §2.1.2 Evaluate and Mitigate, 'Evaluate for performance and safety', paragraph beginning 'These assessments typically use a version of the Frontier AI', second sentence

    • “Informed by this analysis, the Chief AI Officer or the Director of Alignment and Risk will determine whether to request further testing or information, require additional mitigations or improvements, or approve the model for deployment.”

      PDF p. 7 (printed p. 7), §2.1.3 Decide, 'Make a decision on deployment', second sentence

    Note: Threshold assignment names both officers ('and'); the deployment decision names either ('or'). §2.3 adds that deployment follows 'with the approval of the Chief AI Officer' (PDF p. 10).

    Inspect sources and checks

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-04-24

    Stated

    • “The Executive Officers (or their delegates) will make the final decision on whether to approve the recommendation for secure and trustworthy deployment.”

      PDF p. 10 (printed p. 9), §5 Governance, Risk-informed deployment decision, second paragraph, first sentence

    Note: No named role assigns the pre-mitigation score; the Executive Officers are those 'responsible for Microsoft’s AI governance program'.

    Inspect sources and checks

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-05-29

    Stated, partly

    • “We document a justification for why the systemic risks stemming from the model are acceptable, including reasonably foreseeable conditions under which the justification may no longer hold, as informed by recommendations from OpenAI’s Safety Advisory Group and external experts, as available and appropriate.”

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

    • “Additional detail about our deployment governance can be found in Appendix B of the PF.”

      PDF p. 20 (printed p. 18), §6 Allocation of responsibility for risk management, final sentence

    Note: The edition does not itself name who makes the acceptance or deployment determination; it names advisers and refers to the Preparedness Framework's Appendix B.

    Inspect sources and checks

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2025-04-15

    Stated

    • “OpenAI Leadership can approve or reject these recommendations, and our Board’s Safety and Security Committee provides oversight of these decisions.”

      PDF p. 4 (printed p. 3), §1 Introduction, final paragraph, second sentence

    Note: The SAG reviews the Capabilities Report and decides on next steps (§3.3, PDF p. 10) and assesses whether safeguards sufficiently minimize risk (§4.2, PDF p. 11); Appendix B gives OpenAI Leadership (the CEO or a designee) all final decisions, including deployment go/no-go (PDF p. 16).

    Inspect sources and checks

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-07-16

    Not found in the recorded search

    Open the search record