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

Transparency and reportingPublic or external reporting

Criterion: Disclosure the edition says it will make to the public, to governments, or to other external parties, excluding publication of the framework itself (recorded under “Revision process and approval”).

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-07-10

    Stated

    • Paraphrase: The edition says a public version of each Risk Report will be published.

      PDF p. 14, §3.5 Publication and Redactions, first sentence

    • Paraphrase: The edition says the existence of every redaction in the public version will be disclosed.

      PDF p. 14, §3.5 Publication and Redactions, paragraph after the list of redaction reasons

    Note: Also: the Frontier Safety Roadmap is published in redacted form (§2); external reviewers are asked to publish commentary within 30 days (§3.6.2); in the novel chemical/biological weapons row (PDF p. 7), the company column says threat-pathway content and policy recommendations will be shared with policymakers; where a noncompliance report is substantiated and involves a material safety risk, Anthropic “may” give public notice (§4).

    Inspect sources and checks

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-04-23

    Stated

    • Paraphrase: The edition says that if Google DeepMind assesses a model as having reached a CCL presenting a material, unmitigated risk to public safety overall, it aims to give relevant information to appropriate government authorities where this will help frontier AI safety.

      PDF p. 17 (printed p. 17), §5.2 Disclosures, first sentence

    Note: Conditional wording (“aim to”). The trigger refers to CCLs only, not TCLs.

    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 will publish, in a timely manner and in connection with deployment, a preparedness report for every closed or open release of Frontier AI.

      PDF p. 7 (printed p. 7), §2.2.1 Preparedness Reports, first sentence

    Note: The edition also says Meta will, as appropriate, give relevant authorities a summary of its assessments of risk from internal use in an internal-use risk report (PDF p. 9), and will publish a model spec and the results of evaluations of adherence to it (§2.2.3, PDF p. 9).

    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 Microsoft will share publicly information on the model’s capabilities and limitations, on relevant evaluations and on its risk classification, while taking care to protect commercially sensitive information and to minimise information hazards capable of creating safety and security risks.

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

    • Paraphrase: The edition says Microsoft will report information on tracked high-risk capabilities where regulation requires it and as appropriate for managing frontier risks effectively.

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

    Note: Public sharing is qualified in the same sentence: care is to be taken to minimise information hazards and to protect information that is commercially sensitive. The edition also says reports on serious or critical incidents go to regulatory authorities and affected customers as appropriate (PDF p. 9).

    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 says that, for models within the Framework’s scope, OpenAI also publishes details of the assessments in system cards or other reports when a model launches.

      PDF p. 18 (printed p. 16), §4 Model reporting, first paragraph, first and second sentences

    • Paraphrase: The edition says that for an incident found to be reportable, OpenAI will collect information from its investigation and remediation to report to the appropriate authorities by the required deadlines.

      PDF p. 15 (printed p. 13), §2.6 › 'External reporting', second sentence

    Note: The first paragraph of §4 says results are recorded in a “Safety and Security Model Report”, which is called 'Transparency Reports' under the TFAIA. §7.1 states that changelogs for material updates are published within 30 days (PDF p. 21); as publication of the framework itself, that is recorded under “Revision”, not here.

    Inspect sources and checks

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2025-04-15

    Stated

    • Paraphrase: The edition says OpenAI will release information about its Preparedness Framework results for major deployments.

      PDF p. 13 (printed p. 12), §5.2 Transparency and external participation, 'Public disclosures', first sentence

    Note: §4.3 lists public acknowledgement as one of the conditions for adjusting safeguards on marginal-risk grounds (PDF p. 13).

    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 that, where applicable laws and regulations make an incident reportable, xAI will send the relevant authorities a copy of its incident report within the deadlines that apply.

      PDF p. 9, §3 Incident reporting, numbered item 4 (continued from PDF p. 8)

    Note: External reporting is stated only for legally reportable incidents; the list of information that the December 2025 edition said xAI may publish does not appear.

    Inspect sources and checks