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

Exceptions and discretionProvisions conditioned on other developers

Criterion: A provision that relaxes, adjusts or conditions the developer’s safeguards or commitments on what other developers do or have (often called a “race” or “marginal risk” clause). Scope tests that decide whether a model is covered by the framework are recorded as context, not counted.

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-07-10

    Stated

    • “we will meet or exceed the overall risk reduction posture of these competitors”

      PDF p. 17, Appendix A, table row 'Competitors have strong safety measures', Commitment column, first sentence

    • “We will make a significant effort to meet or exceed that performance standard. However, we will not necessarily delay AI development and deployment in this scenario.”

      PDF p. 17, Appendix A, table row 'General upleveling', Commitment column, second sentence

    Note: Appendix A ('Commitments Related to Competitors') has three scenarios; the 'Anthropic in the lead' delay is recorded under “Pause, non-deployment or non-training”. §1 says Anthropic cannot unilaterally and unconditionally commit to the industry-wide recommendations, framing the change as a collective action problem. Where a decision relies on marginal risk analysis, Risk Reports add a competitive landscape analysis (§3.3) and need Board and LTBT approval (§3.4).

    Inspect sources and checks

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-04-23

    Stated

    • “if other models are similarly capable and have few mitigations, then the marginal risk added by our external deployment is likely low”

      PDF p. 7 (printed p. 7), §1.3.5 Risk Acceptance Determination, misuse T/CCL bullet, first sub-bullet, parenthetical example

    • “a model does not possess capabilities meaningfully different from other publicly available models that have weaker security applied”

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

    Inspect sources and checks

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-04-08

    Not found in the recorded search

    Note: Comparative scope and reference-class provisions, not a waiver of safeguards conditional on other developers. Appendix I compares a model with 'the most advanced models' (not limited to Meta's) to decide whether it is Frontier AI (PDF p. 41); §2.1.1 compares a planned model 'against our own models and those available externally' to identify a 'reference class' used to anticipate risks and required assessments (PDF p. 4). Both are recorded here as context.

    Open the search record

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-04-24

    Stated, partly

    • “considers the marginal capability uplift … including currently available open-weights models.”

      PDF p. 7 (printed p. 6), §3, Deeper capability assessment, 'Holistic risk assessment' bullet, final sentence

    Note: A marginal-uplift consideration in the risk determination, measured against available tools and open-weights models; it does not state that measures change depending on other developers’ actions.

    Inspect sources and checks

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-05-29

    Not found in the recorded search

    Note: Exemption from Model Report updates by reference to the EU Code of Practice's similarly-safe-or-safer test, whose safe reference model may be another provider's model (Code, Appendix 2.1); governs reporting only, not safeguards.

    Open the search record

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2025-04-15

    Stated

    • “another frontier AI model developer might develop or release a system with High or Critical capability … without instituting comparable safeguards”

      PDF p. 13 (printed p. 12), §4.3 Marginal risk, first paragraph, first sentence

    • “If we are able to rigorously confirm that such a scenario has occurred, then we could adjust accordingly the level of safeguards that we require in that capability area, but only if:”

      PDF p. 13 (printed p. 12), §4.3 Marginal risk, first paragraph

    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