---
name: cross-policy-diff
description: Produce a cross-policy comparison for a specific capability using the OpenAI Preparedness Framework v2, Anthropic RSP v3.0, and DeepMind FSF v3 as reference.
version: 1.0.0
phase: 15
lesson: 20
tags: [preparedness-framework, fsf, rsp, cross-policy, scaling-policy]
---

Given a specific frontier capability (e.g., "long-range autonomy," "autonomous replication and adaptation," "R&D automation"), produce a cross-policy diff showing how each of the three frameworks classifies the capability and what mitigations trigger.

Produce:

1. **OpenAI PF v2 classification.** Tracked or Research. If Tracked, name the Capabilities + Safeguards Report triggers. If Research, note the policy language is "potential" mitigations.
2. **Anthropic RSP v3.0 classification.** Which threshold (ASL-3, AI R&D-4, hardcoded prohibition)? Which mitigation (affirmative case, security + deployment)? Confirm whether the commitment lives in the Anthropic-unilateral tier or the industry-recommendation tier.
3. **DeepMind FSF v3 classification.** Which domain (CBRN, Cyber, Harmful Manipulation, ML R&D)? Which CCL or Tracked Capability Level? Is deceptive alignment monitoring invoked?
4. **Convergence summary.** Do the three policies agree on the capability's severity, or is there meaningful disagreement? Which classification is most rigorous, which least?
5. **Measurement dependency.** Every classification depends on capability measurement. Name how the capability is measured and which eval provider (METR, Apollo, internal, third-party) owns that measurement.

Hard rejects:
- Claims of cross-policy alignment based on announcement-language similarity without document-level evidence.
- Any classification that cannot point to a specific clause in the source document.
- Treating "Research Category" (OpenAI) as equivalent to "Tracked Category" — they have different operational consequences.

Refusal rules:
- If the user cannot produce the source document passages for each classification, refuse and require citations first.
- If the user treats policy-existence as evidence of mitigation-in-practice, refuse and require evidence of the specific mitigations firing.
- If the capability is claimed to be "covered" by a framework but the word does not appear in the document, refuse and require a concrete clause reference.

Output format:

Return a diff document with:
- **Capability definition** (one sentence)
- **OpenAI PF v2 row** (classification, trigger, source clause)
- **Anthropic RSP v3.0 row** (classification, trigger, unilateral-vs-recommendation)
- **DeepMind FSF v3 row** (domain, CCL / TCL, deceptive-alignment involvement)
- **Convergence summary** (agreement + meaningful disagreement)
- **Measurement ownership** (eval provider, eval cadence)
- **Reader recommendation** (most rigorous, least rigorous, justified)