SafeWave Nuclear Weapons / Deterrence / Escalation Follow-Up Questionnaire

High-consequence follow-up for systems that operate in, support, control, influence, monitor, analyze, secure, automate, or materially affect nuclear weapons systems, nuclear command-and-control, early-warning systems, missile defense, radiological systems, nuclear energy infrastructure, nuclear materials, nuclear safety, emergency response, or related nuclear/radiological 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

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.

Name (optional)

Email for matching or report delivery (optional — generic email may be used)

Company / organization (optional — generic label may be used)

System / business unit label (generic label may be used)

Assessment reference ID (optional)

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.

Nuclear Weapons / Deterrence / Escalation

Nuclear Weapons / Deterrence / Escalation Systems Questions

These questions evaluate compressed decision timelines, early-warning ambiguity, human veto authority, defense-offense coupling, cyber-nuclear compromise, cross-domain escalation, crisis-freeze mechanisms, recursive escalation acceleration, radiological material access, facility-control integrity, auditability, and loss of meaningful human control.

NUC.3 Can system outputs materially influence nuclear, radiological, escalation, emergency, facility, material, or command decisions?

Single choice

NUC.4 Is there a clear separation between advisory output and executable nuclear or radiological action?

Single choice

NUC.5 Can the system compress the time available for human interpretation, verification, deliberation, or reversal?

Single choice

NUC.6 Are human decision windows explicitly protected when warning data, facility data, emergency data, or command signals are ambiguous or degraded?

Single choice

Yes, protected by enforced delay or pause mechanisms Mostly protected Partially protected Procedural or discretionary only No clear protection of human decision windows Unknown / not evaluated N/A

NUC.7 Are defensive, protective, or monitoring systems structurally separated from offensive, release, escalation, or irreversible-action pathways?

Single choice

NUC.8 Could defensive alerts, readiness states, intercept actions, facility alarms, threat assessments, or protective measures justify or accelerate offensive or irreversible action?

Single choice

NUC.9 Are crisis-freeze, escalation-pause, safe-state, or rollback mechanisms enforced when signals are ambiguous, contradictory, degraded, or adversarially manipulated?

Single choice

NUC.10 Can escalation, release, facility action, emergency response, or radiological action continue automatically when confidence is low or data is contradictory?

Single choice

No, low-confidence conditions block or pause action Mostly blocked or paused Partially blocked or paused Action may continue under some low-confidence conditions Unknown / not evaluated N/A

NUC.11 Are launch-on-warning or warning-driven irreversible-action dynamics possible in this system or workflow?

Single choice

No warning-driven irreversible action pathway Limited pathway with strict controls Possible under unusual crisis conditions Operationally credible pathway exists Unknown / not evaluated N/A

NUC.12 Does the system preserve human-in-command authority across all normal, crisis, degraded, and emergency modes?

Single choice

Yes, human-in-command authority is preserved and verified Mostly preserved Partially preserved Authority may degrade under crisis or emergency conditions Unknown / not evaluated N/A

NUC.13 Can automation, emergency modes, pre-delegation, failover logic, or degraded communications shift decision authority away from accountable human control?

Single choice

NUC.14 Is human veto authority active, verifiable, and non-bypassable across all operational states?

Single choice

Yes, veto authority is non-bypassable and tested Mostly preserved Partially preserved Veto authority may be time-compressed, degraded, or bypassable No clear human veto authority Unknown / not evaluated N/A

NUC.15 Can human decision-makers reliably pause, halt, or reverse escalation or high-consequence action under extreme time pressure?

Single choice

Yes, reliable braking authority exists Mostly reliable Partially reliable Human reversal may be difficult under time compression No clear human braking authority Unknown / not evaluated N/A

NUC.16 Are multi-person, multi-node, geographically separated, or independently verified authorization controls required for high-consequence nuclear/radiological action?

Single choice

Yes, strong multi-node authorization exists Mostly required Partially required Single-node or weak authorization possible Unknown / not evaluated N/A

NUC.17 Are early-warning, sensing, monitoring, or facility-alert systems required to use multi-source verification before escalation-relevant or irreversible actions proceed?

Single choice

NUC.18 Are uncertainty, contradiction, confidence level, and degraded-data conditions explicitly visible to human decision-makers?

Single choice

Yes, uncertainty and contradiction remain visible Mostly visible Partially visible Often collapsed into simplified outputs Unknown / not evaluated N/A

NUC.19 Can fused sensor, warning, monitoring, or intelligence outputs create false certainty by suppressing uncertainty or contradiction?

Single choice

NUC.20 Are sensors, communications, warning systems, fusion algorithms, and monitoring systems resilient against spoofing, jamming, decoys, clutter, misclassification, intrusion, or adversarial manipulation?

Single choice

Yes, resilient and adversarially tested Mostly resilient Partially resilient Resilience is uncertain under sophisticated attack Unknown / not evaluated N/A

NUC.21 Do degraded or contested sensing conditions reliably inhibit escalation or irreversible action?

Single choice

Yes, degraded sensing inhibits action by default Mostly inhibits action Partially inhibits action Action may continue despite degraded sensing Unknown / not evaluated N/A

NUC.22 Are shared early-warning, deconfliction, crisis communication, or independent validation channels available and operationally integrated?

Single choice

Yes, integrated and exercised Mostly integrated Partially integrated Available but not reliably integrated No clear shared validation or deconfliction channel Unknown / not evaluated N/A

NUC.23 Can cross-domain activity from cyber, space, conventional, AI, intelligence, or infrastructure systems unintentionally influence nuclear/radiological decision pathways?

Single choice

NUC.24 Are cross-domain dependencies explicitly mapped, bounded, and tested under crisis conditions?

Single choice

NUC.25 Can advanced systems, including AI, autonomous analysis, cyber tools, or space-enabled systems, materially influence escalation-relevant decisions beyond advisory support?

Single choice

No, advisory support only Limited influence with strict controls Moderate influence with partial controls Significant influence beyond advisory support Unknown / not evaluated N/A

NUC.26 Are advanced systems constrained by enforceable limits on speed, scope, authority, and confidence amplification?

Single choice

NUC.27 Could the system create recursive escalation acceleration, where faster analysis increases confidence, increased confidence accelerates action, and accelerated action reduces human correction time?

Single choice

NUC.28 Are there architectural brakes that interrupt feedback loops between warning, confidence, readiness, escalation, and action?

Single choice

NUC.29 Are command, communications, authorization, facility-control, or emergency-response channels protected against cyber intrusion, spoofing, signal manipulation, credential compromise, or communications degradation?

Single choice

Yes, strongly protected and crisis-tested Mostly protected Partially protected Protection is uncertain under crisis conditions Unknown / not evaluated N/A

NUC.30 Do uncertain, degraded, or unverifiable communications fail safe rather than accelerate action?

Single choice

Yes, fail-safe behavior is enforced Mostly fail-safe Partially fail-safe May continue or accelerate under degraded communications Unknown / not evaluated N/A

NUC.31 Are hardware, firmware, software, sensor, supply-chain, and update pathways protected against hidden compromise, counterfeit components, malicious updates, or latent backdoors?

Single choice

Yes, end-to-end provenance and verification exist Mostly protected Partially protected Vendor trust or conventional controls only No clear supply-chain integrity model Unknown / not evaluated N/A

NUC.32 Are high-consequence nuclear/radiological systems subject to adversarial testing, red-teaming, scenario rehearsal, and failure discovery?

Single choice

NUC.33 Do simulations explicitly test false alarms, spoofing, ambiguous signals, communications loss, human cognitive overload, automation bias, cross-domain cascades, and escalation failure modes?

Single choice

NUC.34 Are decision pathways, warning inputs, authorization steps, communications, overrides, and system states logged in a tamper-evident and independently reviewable way?

Single choice

Yes, fully logged and independently reviewable Mostly logged Partially logged Fragmented or internal-only logging No clear forensic auditability Unknown / not evaluated N/A

NUC.35 Can incidents, near-misses, false alarms, degraded-state decisions, and high-consequence actions be reconstructed after the fact?

Single choice

NUC.36 Are radiological material access, movement, storage, facility controls, and emergency-response actions bounded by independent authorization and audit?

Single choice

NUC.37 Could unauthorized access, insider action, compromised credentials, or facility-control failure lead to radiological exposure, material diversion, sabotage, or release?

Single choice

NUC.38 Are there non-negotiable stop conditions where the workflow must halt rather than proceed with mitigation?

Examples include ambiguous warning, degraded attribution, loss of human veto, cyber-compromised command signals, unverified release authority, radiological containment breach, or loss of facility-control integrity.

Single choice

NUC.40 Are there nuclear, radiological, escalation, facility, material, emergency-response, command, or advanced-system risks not captured above?

Open response

NUC.41 Could external cyber compromise, hostile account access, credential theft, API abuse, cloud compromise, vendor compromise, firmware compromise, command-channel manipulation, or telemetry manipulation materially affect nuclear/radiological decision pathways, facility controls, emergency response, or material safety?

Examples include altered warning data, manipulated facility telemetry, compromised command signals, unsafe facility-control actions, radiological material diversion, emergency-response disruption, false certainty, or degraded human veto authority.

Single choice

No credible pathway Limited pathway with strong safeguards Moderate pathway with partial safeguards Significant pathway Unknown / not evaluated N/A

NUC.42 Are cyber-nuclear compromise scenarios tested against realistic nuclear/radiological consequences?

Examples include compromised warning systems, manipulated facility telemetry, command-channel spoofing, credential theft, vendor compromise, malicious firmware or software updates, corrupted safety systems, emergency-response disruption, or degraded communications during crisis conditions.

Single choice

Yes, tested against realistic nuclear/radiological consequences Mostly tested Partially tested Cyber testing exists but nuclear/radiological consequences are not fully tested No clear cyber-nuclear compromise testing Unknown / not evaluated N/A

NUC.43 Should this assessment also include the Cybersecurity / Cyber Operations follow-up questionnaire?

Select “Yes” if cyber compromise, credential abuse, exposed APIs, cloud services, vendor access, telemetry manipulation, firmware compromise, command-channel manipulation, or adversarial control could materially affect nuclear/radiological safety, facility control, command integrity, escalation pathways, emergency response, or material security.

Single choice

Yes — cybersecurity follow-up should also be completed Possibly — further review is needed No — nuclear/radiological questions are sufficient for this case Unknown / not evaluated N/A

NUC.44 — Readiness-State Escalation Boundary: Can the system increase readiness posture, alert level, response posture, facility-control posture, emergency posture, or operational tempo before independent human confirmation and uncertainty review occur?

Single choice

No — readiness or posture escalation requires independent human confirmation Limited posture escalation possible under strict controls Moderate posture escalation possible under partial controls Significant posture escalation possible before independent confirmation Unknown / not evaluated N/A

NUC.45 — Irreversible-Action Delay / Deliberation Boundary: Are irreversible nuclear, radiological, release, facility-control, emergency-response, or escalation-relevant actions subject to enforced deliberation delay, independent confirmation, and non-bypassable human veto before action can proceed?

Single choice

Yes — enforced delay, independent confirmation, and non-bypassable veto are required Mostly required Partially required Procedural or discretionary only No clear enforced deliberation and veto boundary Unknown / not evaluated N/A

NUC.46 — Load-Bearing Assumptions: Before a nuclear, radiological, readiness, facility-control, emergency-response, release, or escalation-relevant action occurs, are the specific assumptions on which its safety and authorization depend explicitly identified?

Single choice

Yes — all load-bearing assumptions are explicitly identified and linked to dependent actions Mostly — major assumptions are identified, but some dependencies remain implicit Partially — assumptions are considered informally or inconsistently No — actions may proceed without identifying their load-bearing assumptions Unknown / not evaluated N/A

NUC.47 — Consequence-Proportionate Evidence: Is each load-bearing assumption supported by independent, current, context-relevant evidence whose strength is proportionate to the possible scale and irreversibility of nuclear or radiological harm?

Single choice

Yes — evidence requirements increase with consequence and are independently verified Mostly — evidence is generally proportionate, with limited gaps Partially — some evidence exists, but it is not consistently proportionate or independent No — plausible or system-generated claims may be accepted without consequence-proportionate verification Unknown / not evaluated N/A

NUC.48 — Assumption Revalidation and Dependent Revocation: If a load-bearing assumption becomes stale, contradicted, contextually invalid, or insufficiently supported, is every dependent nuclear, radiological, readiness, facility-control, emergency-response, release, or escalation-relevant action or authority automatically paused or withdrawn until the assumption is revalidated?

Single choice

Yes — dependent action and authority are automatically paused or withdrawn Mostly — automatic withdrawal applies to the highest-consequence dependencies Partially — alerts or human review occur, but dependent authority may continue No — dependent action or authority can continue after the assumption becomes unreliable Unknown / not evaluated N/A

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.