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

Evaluation cadence and timingEvaluation timing

Criterion: The edition’s statement of when evaluations are run: before deployment, at compute or capability intervals, on a calendar, or on another trigger.

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-07-10

    Stated, partly

    • Paraphrase: The edition says a Risk Report will be published every three to six months.

      PDF p. 11, §3.1 Scope and Timing, paragraph 'Timing'

    Note: The edition sets how often Risk Reports, which include capability and alignment evaluation results, are published, not a schedule for running evaluations. Its “Off-cycle updates” analyse an individual model when a publicly deployed model is significantly more capable than all models whose relevant risks have been publicly analysed, or within 30 days for qualifying internal models. Each Risk Report covers the position as of a coverage date no more than 30 days before publication. No compute- or capability-interval trigger is stated.

    Inspect sources and checks

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-04-23

    Stated

    • Paraphrase: Google DeepMind conducts a critical capability assessment before a new frontier AI model’s first external deployment; under footnote 4, one may be skipped for a low-risk external deployment if the appropriate governance function finds its residual risk acceptable, even at a reached T/CCL (with a safety case at a CCL).

      PDF p. 5 (printed p. 5), §1.3.2 Inherent Risk Assessment, first paragraph, second sentence, and footnote 4

    Note: Material capability change assessments are run on various checkpoints once a post-training run is completed (PDF p. 5). For later versions deployed externally, Google DeepMind decides if another critical capability assessment is needed where a model shows meaningful new capabilities or a material increase in performance and it believes these could materially undercut its justification for accepting the risks. No compute or calendar interval is stated. Footnote 4 (PDF p. 5) says the assessment may be skipped for low-risk external deployments, such as to a few trusted testers, if the governance function finds the residual risk acceptable, even where a T/CCL has been reached.

    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 typically repeats evaluations when a Frontier AI model is close to finishing, or has finished, training.

      PDF p. 26 (printed p. 26), §4.2 Evaluation and mitigation, sixth paragraph, first sentence

    Note: The edition also says monitored indicators during development trigger further evaluations (PDF p. 5), preliminary assessments precede controlled deployments (PDF p. 8), and residual risk is assessed before deployment (PDF p. 6).

    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 leading indicator assessment runs at four points: during pre-training, once pre-training has finished, after post-training, and before deployment.

      PDF p. 6 (printed p. 5), §3 Evaluation and assessment, second paragraph, first sentence

    • Paraphrase: The edition says that, once a first deeper capability assessment has been done, Microsoft will repeat such assessments if the risk profile of the deployed model changes materially, giving fine-tuning as an example.

      PDF p. 7 (printed p. 6), §3, Deeper capability assessment, 'Timing of deeper capability assessment'

    Note: Leading indicator assessment applies to models in scope of frontier-model laws (EU AI Act, TFAIA, RAISE Act) and to substantial fine-tuning, and the edition says models in scope undergo it at least every six months (PDF p. 6).

    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 states that models within the Framework's scope go through a suite of scalable evaluations before deployment.

      PDF p. 8 (printed p. 06), §2.3 Systemic risk acceptance determination, second paragraph, first sentence

    Note: §2.2 states that risk assessment may happen at any stage of a model's lifecycle (PDF p. 7); §4 describes lighter-touch evaluations at trigger points and a decision every six months on whether the Model Report needs updating (PDF p. 18).

    Inspect sources and checks

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2025-04-15

    Stated

    • Paraphrase: The edition states that every covered model goes through the suite of Scalable Evaluations before deployment.

      PDF p. 10 (printed p. 9), §3.3 Capability threshold determinations, first sentence

    Note: Coverage is triggered by deployments (§3.2 lists covered deployments); a checkpoint during development is covered when forecasts and threat models justify it (PDF p. 10). No compute-interval trigger is stated.

    Inspect sources and checks

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-07-16

    Stated

    • Paraphrase: The edition says xAI will carry out, at least once a year, a full process of systemic risk assessment and mitigation for its frontier models.

      PDF p. 2, §2 Risk Management Framework, second paragraph, first sentence

    • Paraphrase: The edition says these evaluations are performed before wider deployment of xAI's models.

      PDF p. 6, first §2.3 'Systemic risk acceptance determination', first paragraph (continued from PDF p. 5), second sentence

    Note: The edition says smaller-scale evaluations may also be run at listed trigger points: an updated model release, a serious incident, materially increased risk from use or integration, or a material change in the basis for acceptability (PDF p. 2).

    Inspect sources and checks