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 decidesBoard or external oversight

Criterion: A role the edition gives to a board, board committee, trust, or external party in overseeing or reviewing those decisions.

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-07-10

    Stated

    • “In the event that marginal risk analysis (see previous section) plays a major role in a decision to move forward, explicit approval of the Risk Report by the Board and LTBT (rather than just the CEO and RSO) will be required.”

      PDF p. 14 (printed p. 14), §3.4 Procedures, item 5 ('Modified process when marginal risk analysis is important to our case')

    • “In addition, upon the LTBT’s request, we will conduct a public or private external review of our Risk Report or sections thereof, subject to the procedures outlined below.”

      PDF p. 14 (printed p. 14), §3.6 External Review, final paragraph before §3.6.1

    Note: Otherwise the CEO and RSO share their decision(s), the Risk Report and internal feedback with the Board and LTBT after approval (§3.4 item 4). External reviewers of Risk Reports are selected with the Board consulted and LTBT approval required (from v3.2) and asked to publish commentary (§3.6); an approximately annual third-party review of procedural compliance is commissioned (§4).

    Inspect sources and checks

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-04-23

    Not found in the recorded search

    Note: Internal reviews with escalation are described (§4.1, PDF p. 16); the facet asks for a board, trust or external party.

    Open the search record

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-04-08

    Stated, partly

    • “Meta’s Board of Directors provides oversight of the company’s product and regulatory compliance”

      PDF p. 10 (printed p. 10), §2.3 Accountability, third paragraph, final sentence

    Note: The board role is stated as general product and regulatory compliance oversight, not a specific role in framework decisions. An internal governance function periodically reviews risk management practices (same paragraph).

    Inspect sources and checks

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-04-24

    Stated, partly

    • “This framework is subject to Microsoft’s broader corporate governance procedures, including independent internal audit and board oversight.”

      PDF p. 10 (printed p. 9), §5 Governance, 'Oversight and reporting channels', first sentence

    Note: The board role is stated through general corporate governance; no specific board review of framework decisions is described.

    Inspect sources and checks

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-05-29

    Stated

    • “The board of directors of OpenAI Ireland Limited exercise systemic risk oversight under this Framework for EU purposes.”

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

    Note: Material updates to the Framework go to the OpenAI Foundation board's Safety and Security Committee and the OpenAI Ireland Limited board for oversight (§7.1, PDF p. 21).

    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

    • “Where necessary, the Board may reverse a decision and/or mandate a revised course of action.”

      PDF p. 16 (printed p. 15), Appendix B 'Decision-making practices', paragraph on the Safety and Security Committee, final sentence

    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