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 reportingInternal reporting

Criterion: Reporting or records the edition requires inside the developer (to leadership, a board, staff or a compliance function).

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-07-10

    Stated

    • Paraphrase: The edition says final Risk Reports without redactions will be shared with many Anthropic employees (at least 200).

      PDF p. 16, §4 Governance, item 3 ('Internal transparency')

    • Paraphrase: The edition says Anthropic will brief the LTBT regularly on plans and developments relating to its Risk Reports, including model training.

      PDF p. 16, §4 Governance, item 2 ('Long Term Benefit Trust')

    Note: Also: the Board receives quarterly updates on noncompliance reports (§4); the Frontier Safety Roadmap is shared with every full-time employee, the Board and the LTBT (§2); the CEO and RSO, once they have approved a Risk Report, share their decisions, the report and the internal feedback with the Board and the LTBT (§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, partly

    • Paraphrase: The edition says material safety-case updates will be sent for review to the appropriate governance function.

      PDF pp. 10–14 (printed pp. 10 and 14), §2.1.2 and §3.1.2 Deployment Mitigations, numbered step 3, second sentence (identical in both)

    Note: Submission for review of safety-case updates. §4.1 (PDF p. 16) describes, in general terms, legal, compliance and safety reviews that have escalation procedures, and §5.1 (PDF p. 17) says the updated Framework and the framework assessment will go to the appropriate corporate governance bodies for review. No dedicated internal reporting line or record-keeping requirement is stated.

    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 that, under the reporting protocol, every report will in the end be submitted to three recipients: Meta's internal governance function, its “Chief AI Officer”, and its “Director of Alignment and Risk”.

      PDF p. 10 (printed p. 10), §2.3.1 Reporting, second sentence

    Note: Refers to employee reports of non-compliance under a protocol that the edition says Meta is developing.

    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 documentation of the capability assessments before and after mitigation will go to the “Executive Officers” responsible for Microsoft's AI governance programme, or their delegates.

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

    Note: The edition also says all employees are encouraged to raise concerns through internal channels, anonymously if they choose, and are protected from retaliation (PDF p. 10).

    Inspect sources and checks

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-05-29

    Stated, partly

    • Paraphrase: The edition says OpenAI documents a justification of why a model’s systemic risks are acceptable, which includes the reasonably foreseeable conditions under which that justification may stop holding, informed by recommendations from its Safety Advisory Group and outside experts, “as available and appropriate”.

      PDF p. 13 (printed p. 11), §2.5 Safety mitigations, second paragraph, second sentence

    Note: The passage records a documented justification but does not name its internal recipients. §2.6 states that the incident response plan includes notifying appropriate internal teams (PDF p. 14).

    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 keep a record of relevant reports to the SAG and of the SAG's decisions and reasoning.

      PDF p. 13 (printed p. 12), §5.1 Internal governance, 'Internal Transparency', first sentence

    Note: The same item says employees may ask for, and receive, a summary of testing results and of the SAG recommendation, subject to limits for highly sensitive information (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 the results of xAI’s processes and measures for assessing and mitigating systemic risk will be documented.

      PDF p. 2, §2 Risk Management Framework, third paragraph

    Note: No internal recipient is named. Employee escalation is listed as a channel for identifying incidents (PDF p. 8).

    Inspect sources and checks