SafeWave Systems

SafeWave Biological / Life Sciences Follow-Up Questionnaire

High-consequence follow-up for biological research, genomics, synthetic biology, gene editing, lab automation, clinical biotechnology, drug discovery, biological data analysis, DNA/RNA synthesis, pathogen research, agricultural biotechnology, ecological biology, and related life-sciences workflows.

Follow-up Questionnaire Notice

You may preview or complete this follow-up before, after, or without completing the core SafeWave questionnaire. Opening or completing it does not transmit information or begin an engagement.

If you want this follow-up included in a SafeWave assessment, complete the core questionnaire and use the same Assessment Reference ID or generic system label. The answers may then be used to generate a separate High-Consequence Addendum. This follow-up supplements the core assessment; it does not replace it.

Confidentiality, Anonymity & Use Notice

We recognize that this questionnaire may involve confidential, security-sensitive, operationally sensitive, or high-consequence system information. SafeWave does not require classified information, credentials, live vulnerability details, controlled data, proprietary implementation details, customer data, or other highly sensitive material. Do not submit such information through this questionnaire. Use anonymized descriptions, generic labels, hypothetical scenarios, or composite systems instead.

You may complete and download this questionnaire without providing your name or identifying your employer, organization, model, system, project, or deployment. No personal or work email address is required.

Your responses are saved only in this browser on this device. Generating or downloading a completed follow-up does not send it to SafeWave or any third party. Information reaches SafeWave only if you deliberately send the completed document.

Reset Form clears the locally saved responses for this page.

The questions are useful as a private self-assessment. They may expose overlooked critical assumptions, interacting risk pathways, unclear authority or ownership, missing evidence, unstable behavior, undefined operating boundaries, or inadequate recovery conditions. If an implementation detail is unknown, select Unknown / not evaluated rather than guessing.

If you request a report, you may use a separate, non-identifying return address. SafeWave will not use that address for promotional contact unless you expressly request further communication. You may also request that the report use neutral functional terminology rather than SafeWave architecture names.

Completing this questionnaire does not create a finding, admission, engagement, compliance determination, certification, or implementation obligation. Using the questionnaire, sending information, requesting a report, and entering any later customer or partnership discussion are separate decisions under your control.

Any resulting SafeWave recommendations are architectural guidance and implementation requirements, not a claim that one generic solution can be inserted into every system. Engineering teams may implement equivalent controls themselves or use SafeWave mappings and Engineering Packs to support further implementation work.

SafeWave provides the assessment because helping make advanced AI safer for humanity is central to our mission. If you find it valuable, you may later choose to work with SafeWave, but there is no obligation.

If an implementation detail is not known, select Unknown / not evaluated rather than guessing.

Answer based on actual or currently planned system behavior, not ideal policy language.

Assessment Linkage

Assessment Linkage

If you want this follow-up to be matched to a previously completed core questionnaire, use the same system label, contact email, or assessment reference ID. You may use generic identifiers if confidentiality is a concern.

To connect this follow-up to a core questionnaire, use the same system label, email, or assessment reference ID across forms. You may use generic identifiers if confidentiality is a concern.

Biological / Life Sciences

Biological / Life Sciences Systems Questions

These questions evaluate biological design acceleration, non-recall biological outcomes, dual-use exposure, synthesis and automation control, cyber-biological compromise, supply-chain risk, AI-bio convergence, ecological irreversibility, heritable modification, public-health overload, and loss of meaningful human control over life-critical biological workflows.

BIO.1 What biological or life-sciences context applies to this system?

Select all that apply.

Multi-select

BIO.2 What role does the system play in the biological workflow?

Single choice

BIO.3 Can system outputs materially influence biological design, synthesis, experimentation, deployment, or release?

Single choice

BIO.4 Is there a clear separation between biological recommendation and biological execution?

Examples include separation between model output, protocol generation, synthesis ordering, lab automation, experiment execution, release approval, or clinical deployment.

Single choice

BIO.5 Can the system accelerate movement from biological design to synthesis, testing, scale-up, or deployment?

Single choice

BIO.6 Are there non-bypassable pause points before the workflow enters synthesis, live experimentation, scale-up, release, or clinical use?

Single choice

BIO.7 Could the system contribute to non-recall biological outcomes?

Examples include self-propagating organisms, ecological release, gene drives, germline modification, persistent biological exposure, population-scale intervention, or irreversible clinical harm.

Single choice

BIO.8 Is recallability explicitly assessed before any biological intervention, deployment, or release?

Single choice

BIO.9 Could the system affect biological materials, organisms, agents, constructs, samples, vectors, reagents, or datasets with dual-use potential?

Single choice

BIO.10 Are dual-use risks assessed end-to-end across people, data, tools, facilities, automation, vendors, and supply chains?

Single choice

BIO.11 Are genomic, pathogen, clinical, population-scale, or proprietary biological datasets protected as critical infrastructure?

Single choice

BIO.12 Can sensitive biological or genomic data be exfiltrated, aggregated, inferred from, or repurposed in ways that create biological, clinical, population, or security risk?

Single choice

BIO.13 Are synthetic biology tools, DNA/RNA synthesis services, lab automation systems, and cloud biology platforms governed with identity verification, screening, provenance, and auditability?

Single choice

BIO.14 Are synthesis, automation, or execution workflows blocked when risk screening fails or returns uncertainty?

Single choice

BIO.15 Are biosafety controls resilient under stress, scale, automation pressure, staffing turnover, incident conditions, or degraded information?

Single choice

BIO.16 Are accidental release scenarios tested, drilled, logged, and independently reviewed?

Single choice

BIO.17 Are biological supply chains protected with provenance, chain-of-custody, tamper evidence, secure firmware, and recall-ready traceability?

Single choice

BIO.18 Can compromised vendors, altered reagents, tampered instruments, insecure firmware, or cloud-linked services silently affect biological outcomes?

Single choice

BIO.19 Does the system use AI for biological design, optimization, experimentation, or decision support?

Single choice

BIO.20 Are AI-driven biological design tools controlled through tiered access, monitoring, outcome restrictions, red-team testing, and human authorization?

Single choice

BIO.21 Can the system generate, optimize, rank, or recommend biological designs, protocols, or interventions that require special review before execution?

Single choice

BIO.22 Are design, synthesis, testing, deployment, and release functions separated so that no single system or user can move through the full biological pathway without independent review?

Single choice

BIO.23 Are insider-risk controls enforced across labs, datasets, automation systems, synthesis workflows, vendors, and platform administrators?

Single choice

BIO.24 Can a single authorized person, contractor, administrator, or compromised account execute high-risk biological actions without independent authorization?

Single choice

BIO.25 Do governance bodies have binding authority to halt, delay, or reject high-risk biological activity?

Single choice

BIO.26 Are approvals, exceptions, override decisions, and risk reviews logged in a tamper-evident and independently auditable way?

Single choice

BIO.27 Are whistleblowers, dissenting scientists, safety reviewers, and risk escalators protected from retaliation?

Single choice

BIO.28 Does the system operate near ecological, environmental, or population-scale release pathways?

Single choice

BIO.29 Is real-world reversibility proven and independently verified before ecological, environmental, or population-scale deployment?

Single choice

BIO.30 Could the system contribute to heritable human modification, germline editing, embryo modification, reproductive selection escalation, or genetic stratification?

Single choice

BIO.31 Are hard boundaries enforced against heritable human modification, irreversible enhancement, or biological redesign that affects future generations?

Single choice

BIO.32 Could the system cause irreversible developmental, neurological, phenotypic, clinical, or intergenerational harm if design assumptions, models, automation, or human review fail?

Single choice

BIO.33 Are high-consequence biological decisions subject to genuine human authorization that addresses any unresolved load-bearing assumptions before irreversible action occurs?

Single choice

BIO.34 Are public-health detection, reporting, and response pathways sufficient if the system contributes to accidental or malicious biological exposure?

Single choice

BIO.35 Could the system’s outputs, actions, or dependencies overwhelm public-health, clinical, ecological, regulatory, or institutional response capacity?

Single choice

BIO.36 Could acceleration pressure, competitive pressure, emergency framing, funding incentives, or geopolitical pressure weaken safeguards, oversight, or pause points?

Single choice

BIO.37 Are there non-negotiable stop conditions where the workflow must halt rather than proceed with mitigation?

Examples include non-recall release, heritable modification, autonomous biological execution, extreme-risk pathogen work, or uncontrolled AI-bio acceleration.

Single choice

BIO.38 Is there a defined biological operating boundary for what the system is allowed to design, recommend, automate, or influence?

Examples include permitted organism classes, sequence types, pathogen-adjacent work, clinical-use limits, environmental-release exclusions, gene-editing boundaries, synthesis thresholds, and prohibited biological functions.

Single choice

BIO.39 Are high-risk biological outputs screened before they can move into downstream workflows?

Examples include protocol generation, synthesis ordering, lab automation, vendor submission, experiment planning, clinical deployment, or environmental release review.

Single choice

BIO.40 Can the system distinguish between benign biological requests and requests that may enable harmful, dual-use, irreversible, or non-recall outcomes?

Single choice

BIO.41 Are biological-risk decisions explainable enough for qualified reviewers to identify the load-bearing assumptions, affected conclusions or actions, required evidence, and why a request, output, workflow, or intervention was allowed, blocked, escalated, or modified?

Single choice

BIO.42 Are model, database, protocol, or automation updates blocked until biological-risk controls are revalidated?

Single choice

BIO.43 Which biological / life-sciences areas remain unknown or not evaluated?

Select all that apply.

Multi-select

BIO.44 Are there biological, genomic, life-sciences, clinical, ecological, or biosecurity risks not captured above?

Open response

BIO.45 Could external cyber compromise, hostile account access, credential theft, API abuse, cloud compromise, lab-system compromise, vendor compromise, or command-channel manipulation cause unsafe biological outputs or actions?

Examples include altered DNA/RNA sequence design, modified protocol generation, manipulated synthesis requests, altered lab automation, unsafe model recommendations, changed screening results, tampered biological data, or unauthorized movement from design to execution.

Single choice

BIO.46 Are cyber-biological compromise scenarios tested against realistic biological consequences?

Examples include compromised bio-design tools, altered sequence files, tampered lab automation, manipulated synthesis-ordering workflows, cloud biology compromise, vendor portal compromise, poisoned biological datasets, or malicious changes to screening and approval workflows.

Single choice

BIO.47 Should this assessment also include the Cybersecurity / Cyber Operations follow-up questionnaire?

Select “Yes” if cyber compromise, credential abuse, exposed APIs, cloud services, lab automation, vendor access, telemetry manipulation, synthesis-ordering systems, or adversarial control could materially affect biological design, experimentation, synthesis, deployment, or release.

Single choice

Execution Integrity

Biological Workflow Escalation & Critical Assumption Integrity

These questions examine movement from biological analysis into execution and whether consequential biological activity remains bounded by the continuing validity of the assumptions on which it depends. BIO.50–52 apply SafeAssumption / Critical Assumption Integrity to biological and life-sciences workflows.

BIO.48 — Model-to-Tool / Execution Escalation

Can the system move from biological analysis or recommendation into tool use, vendor submission, protocol generation, lab automation, synthesis ordering, or execution workflow initiation without a separate authorization boundary?

Single choice

BIO.49 — Autonomous Biological Workflow Chaining

Can the system chain biological tasks across design, ranking, protocol generation, vendor interaction, lab automation, testing, analysis, refinement, or redeployment without renewed review at each high-risk transition?

Single choice

BIO.50 — Load-Bearing Biological Assumptions

Before a consequential biological recommendation or action proceeds, are its load-bearing assumptions explicitly identified and traced to the conclusions, protocols, tools, targets, or effects that depend on them?

Examples include patient or organism identity, biomarker applicability, organism-model relevance, containment conditions, dose-response relationships, causal mechanisms, target identity, and expected reversibility.

Single choice

BIO.51 — Consequence-Proportionate Evidence

Must each critical biological assumption satisfy evidence requirements proportionate to the potential consequence before the dependent output or action becomes eligible to proceed?

Evidence requirements may include source independence, recency, biological and contextual applicability, corroboration, qualified review, measurement validity, and rejection of circular AI self-confirmation.

Single choice

BIO.52 — Assumption Revalidation and Dependent Revocation

If a critical biological assumption becomes contradicted, stale, unobservable, or inapplicable after a context change, are dependent recommendations, protocols, permissions, queued actions, and continuing workflows automatically narrowed, suspended, revoked, or recomputed before proceeding?

Revalidation triggers may include a changed patient or organism, new evidence, altered containment, degraded measurement quality, different dose or scale, model or protocol change, delayed execution, propagation, persistence, or increased irreversibility.

Single choice

Your completed follow-up will include the linkage fields above so this follow-up can be matched to the core questionnaire if you choose to share it for report generation.