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

RevisionStated changes from the previous edition

Criterion: The edition’s own statement (changelog, introduction or summary) of what changed from its predecessor. Not applicable to the first edition in a sequence.

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-07-10

    Stated

    • Paraphrase: The v3.4 changelog entry says the update makes five changes, the first being a revision of the Automated R&D capability threshold.

      PDF p. 20, Changelog, entry 'July 8, 2026 (RSP v3.4)', lead-in and item 1

    • Paraphrase: Item 2 says fully unredacted Risk Reports must now go to at least 200 Anthropic employees, not to all staff with regular clearance.

      PDF p. 21, Changelog, entry 'July 8, 2026 (RSP v3.4)', item 2, first sentence

    Note: Items 3–5 set a Risk Report coverage date that may be as much as 30 days before publication, require Anthropic to disclose publicly, in general terms, when it makes redactions in a published Risk Report, and allow external review to be split among reviewers provided every unredacted part is reviewed by at least one reviewer.

    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 Version 3.1 changelog entry says the edition introduced CBRN TCLs and outlined a process for mitigation and risk acceptance.

      PDF p. 17 (printed p. 17), §5.3 Past Updates and Changes, Version 3.1 (April 17, 2026), first bullet

    • Paraphrase: The Version 3.1 changelog entry says the earlier exploratory Misalignment risk domain was folded into one domain, “ML R&D and Misalignment”.

      PDF p. 17 (printed p. 17), §5.3, Version 3.1, second bullet

    Note: The changelog's remaining Version 3.1 entries: Security Level 2+ for the CCLs in the CBRN, Cyber and Harmful Manipulation domains, to protect against insider threats and actors other than states; more detail on the risk management process; a description of the internal governance structure; and a glossary.

    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 change log for version 2.0 says the primary standard for the high and critical thresholds changed from “uniquely enable” to “substantially contribute to”.

      PDF p. 44 (printed p. 44), Appendix II – Change log, entry 'April 7, 2026 (Advanced AI Scaling Framework v2.0)', sub-bullet 'Updated risk threshold language'

    • Paraphrase: The same entry says the critical threshold's measure changed from “Stop” to “Develop with Mitigations” and the high threshold's measure from “Do not release” to “Deploy with mitigations”.

      PDF p. 44, same entry, sub-bullet 'Revised thresholds', first and second sentences

    Note: The same change-log entry also records the rename from 'Frontier AI Framework', the addition of Loss of Control as a domain and of emerging areas (nuclear and radiological, physical autonomy), named decision-makers and incident response, transparency requirements, and a revised definition of Frontier AI.

    Inspect sources and checks

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-04-24

    Stated

    • Paraphrase: The change log for February 2026 lists the addition of two tracked high-risk capabilities: harmful manipulation, and the loss of control.

      PDF p. 16 (printed p. 15), Appendix II – Change log, 'February 2026' row, first bullet

    Note: The row describes a one-year update following the EU Code of Practice, the New York RAISE Act and California's TFAIA, and also lists adjusting the update cadence to regulatory obligations, aligning the framework's scope with regulations, adjusting the cadence of deeper capability assessment, defining substantially fine-tuned models, and other edits for clarity and transparency.

    Inspect sources and checks

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-05-29

    Does not apply

    First edition in this framework; there is no earlier edition.

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2025-04-15

    Stated

    • Paraphrase: The change log states that the terms 'low' and 'medium' are dropped, because those two levels played no operational part in its Preparedness work.

      PDF p. 15 (printed p. 14), Appendix A 'Change log', item 2, final sentence

    Note: The change log has 12 items (PDF pp. 15–16); others include introducing Research Categories (item 5), handling persuasion outside the Framework, moving Nuclear and Radiological to Research Categories, Capabilities and Safeguards Reports, deprioritising safety drills, the marginal-risk approach and the governance process.

    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