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 discretionOther exceptions or discretion

Criterion: Any other stated exception, deviation, override or room for judgement in applying the framework.

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-07-10

    Stated

    • “not hard commitments but rather public goals”

      PDF p. 3, Introduction, paragraph on Frontier Safety Roadmaps, final sentence

    • “making judgment calls on policy interpretation and application”

      PDF p. 16, §4 Governance, item 1 ('Responsible Scaling Officer'), duty (6)

    Note: Further room for judgement: Appendix A says Anthropic will often have to use its best judgment on whether a competitor scenario applies; Risk Reports may record deviations from described mitigations (§3.2); redactions may be made for listed reasons 'not limited to' those (§3.5); a report is 'significantly redacted' in the judgment of the RSO, CEO, Board or LTBT (§3.6).

    Inspect sources and checks

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-04-23

    Stated

    • “A critical capability assessment may not be conducted for low-risk external deployments (e.g. to a small number of trusted testers)”

      PDF p. 5 (printed p. 5), §1.3.2 Inherent Risk Assessment, footnote 4

    Note: §1.3.3 (PDF p. 6) says the specific mitigations implemented 'may be determined when a T/CCL is reached'. Security adequacy may also be assessed on other grounds than the recommended level (§1.3.5), and the closing Note says assessments 'will often involve some level of subjective analysis' (PDF p. 8).

    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

    • “Final deployment decisions may also consider additional factors beyond those covered in this Framework.”

      PDF p. 15 (printed p. 15), §3.3 Risk Thresholds, Table 1, note below the Measures column, second sentence

    Note: Other stated room for judgement: cyber capabilities may be made available 'to qualified and trusted customers where appropriate' (PDF p. 30); chemical and biological capabilities may be offered to trusted researchers 'with reduced mitigations via structured access controls' (PDF p. 33, research area), and non-material modifications are presumed to inherit the underlying model's threshold (PDF p. 17).

    Inspect sources and checks

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-04-24

    Stated

    • “the marginal benefits of a model outweigh any residual risk”

      PDF p. 10 (printed p. 9), §5 Governance, Risk-informed deployment decision, first paragraph, numbered point 2)

    Note: Point 2 is one element of the recommendation submitted for the deployment decision.

    Inspect sources and checks

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-05-29

    Stated

    • “also reflects a holistic judgment based on the totality of available evidence”

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

    • “We will not consider an update necessary if (1) the model’s capabilities have not materially changed since the last update”

      PDF p. 18 (printed p. 16), §4 Model reporting › 'Model report updates', final sentence

    Inspect sources and checks

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2025-04-15

    Stated

    • “OpenAI Leadership can also make decisions without the SAG’s participation”

      PDF p. 16 (printed p. 15), Appendix B, SAG responsibilities, fifth bullet

    Note: Other stated room for judgement: threshold determinations reflect 'holistic judgment' (PDF p. 10); footnote 6 states that distilled, fine-tuned or quantized models from a model below High will ordinarily not require additional safety measures (PDF p. 10); disclosures may be redacted or summarized (PDF p. 14).

    Inspect sources and checks

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-07-16

    Stated

    • “The final decision also reflects an overall judgment based on all the available evidence”

      PDF p. 6, first §2.3 'Systemic risk acceptance determination', third paragraph, third sentence

    • “xAI may change its approach from that listed above in order to make additional improvements.”

      PDF p. 7, second §2.3 'Safety mitigations', paragraph following the safeguards list, second sentence

    Note: The December 2025 trusted-user and benefits-outweigh-benchmark clauses do not appear in this edition.

    Inspect sources and checks