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

RevisionRevision process and approval

Criterion: How the edition says the framework will be reviewed, updated and approved.

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

    Edition textArchived copy, captured 2026-07-10

    Stated

    • Paraphrase: The edition says the CEO and RSO will propose any change to the RSP, and the Board will approve it in consultation with the LTBT.

      PDF p. 16, §4 Governance, item 8 ('Policy changes'), first sentence

    Note: The same item says updated versions will be published on or before their effective date, with the differences recorded in the Change Log. The Introduction describes the RSP as a living document to be updated continually, and §2 says Roadmap goals may change.

    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 the Framework will be reviewed no less than once a year.

      PDF p. 17 (printed p. 17), §5.1 Updates, first sentence

    • Paraphrase: The edition says the appropriate corporate governance bodies will review the updated version and the framework assessment.

      PDF p. 17 (printed p. 17), §5.1 Updates, last 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

    Stated

    • Paraphrase: The edition says Meta will update the Framework at least every twelve months, or sooner on the stated trigger; the “Director of Alignment and Risk” and the “Chief AI Officer” are to confirm the update, which Meta will then publish.

      PDF p. 40 (printed p. 40), §5.1 Updates to our Framework, first paragraph, fourth to sixth sentences

    Note: The same sentence names a further trigger: reasonable grounds to believe that the Framework's adequacy, or Meta's adherence to it, has been undermined in a material way. The edition says published updates will include a justification recorded in the change log.

    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 discuss explicitly, at least every twelve months, how the framework may need improving.

      PDF p. 10 (printed p. 9), §5 Governance, 'Updates to this framework', second sentence

    • Paraphrase: The edition says Microsoft's Chief Responsible AI Officer will review any updates to its practices before they are adopted.

      PDF p. 10 (printed p. 9), §5 Governance, 'Updates to this framework', fourth sentence

    • Paraphrase: The edition says every material revision will be published within 30 days of its adoption.

      PDF p. 10 (printed p. 9), §5 Governance, 'Updates to this framework', fifth sentence

    Note: The edition adds that material revisions may, where appropriate, be published at the time of adoption.

    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 material updates will be presented for oversight to the OpenAI Foundation board's Safety and Security Committee and to OpenAI Ireland Limited's board of directors.

      PDF p. 21 (printed p. 19), §7.1 Update and approval process, fourth (final) sentence, up to 'for oversight'

    • Paraphrase: The edition says a Framework Assessment will be completed by OpenAI at least every 12 months, counted from when the EU Code of Practice and the TFAIA took effect.

      PDF p. 22 (printed p. 20), §7.2 Framework assessment, first sentence

    Note: Being presented for oversight is not stated as approval: the edition names no approver. §7.1 states that updates may be proposed by named officers and bodies, that the Legal function oversees the update process, and that changelogs for material updates are published within 30 days (PDF p. 21). The edition describes itself as overlapping with the Preparedness Framework, which OpenAI says it will keep using and developing (PDF p. 4).

    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 review the Framework for continued sufficiency, and may update it, at least once a year.

      PDF p. 16 (printed p. 15), Appendix B, 'Updates to the Preparedness Framework', third sentence

    Note: Appendix B (PDF p. 16): proposed changes to the Framework are reviewed by the SAG, whose recommendation is handled by the standard decision-making process, in which OpenAI Leadership makes final decisions.

    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 xAI will review the framework periodically and expects significant changes as its models' capabilities expand.

      PDF p. 2, §1 Introduction, final paragraph, final sentence

    Note: No review interval or approval body for revisions of the framework is stated; the edition says the Security Goal is to be reviewed at least every year (PDF p. 7).

    Inspect sources and checks