SafeWave Other / Supplemental High-Consequence Follow-Up Questionnaire

Supplemental high-consequence review for chemical / hazardous materials, defense / battlefield autonomy, government / public-sector, classified / sensitive, safety-critical, space / satellite / orbital infrastructure, child / vulnerable-user, cyber-compromise, and custom high-consequence contexts.

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.

How to use this page: Complete OTH.1 first. Then answer every section that applies to your situation. If several sections are relevant, complete each relevant section; the final addendum will reference all selected contexts together rather than generating a separate report for each section.

You do not need to complete sections that are not relevant. If an implementation detail is not known, select Unknown / not evaluated rather than guessing.

Section index

Use these links to jump to the section or sections that match your OTH.1 selections.

Supplement A — Chemical / Hazardous Materials Context
Supplement B — Defense / Dual-Use / Battlefield Autonomy Context
Supplement C — Government / Public-Sector Context
Supplement D — Classified / Sensitive Context
Supplement E — Safety-Critical Context
Supplement F — Space / Satellite / Orbital Infrastructure Context
Supplement G — Child / Vulnerable-User Context
Supplement H — Other Custom High-Consequence Context
Cross-Cutting Supplemental Questions

Assessment Linkage

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

Supplement A — Chemical / Hazardous Materials Context

Complete this section only if the system affects chemical synthesis, hazardous materials, toxic substances, explosives, industrial chemistry, material handling, storage, transport, or hazardous manufacturing.

OTH-CHEM.1 Does the system operate in, support, recommend, automate, or influence chemical or hazardous-material workflows?

Single choice

OTH-CHEM.2 Can system outputs affect synthesis planning, material selection, process conditions, storage, transport, disposal, or access to hazardous materials?

Single choice

OTH-CHEM.3 Are hazardous-material actions separated from system recommendations by human authorization, screening, and audit?

Single choice

OTH-CHEM.4 Are misuse, diversion, toxic exposure, explosive risk, environmental release, and unsafe synthesis pathways screened before downstream action?

Single choice

Yes, screened before downstream action Mostly screened Partially screened Screening is inconsistent or procedural only No clear screening process Unknown / not evaluated N/A

OTH-CHEM.5 Are emergency shutdown, containment, isolation, cleanup, or exposure-response procedures defined and tested?

Single choice

OTH-CHEM.6 Can AI-generated outputs recommend, optimize, or accelerate chemical synthesis pathways, hazardous-material formulations, process conditions, or material combinations that require special review?

Single choice

OTH-CHEM.7 Are AI-generated chemical or hazardous-material outputs screened before they can move into procurement, synthesis, production, storage, transport, or operational use?

Single choice

OTH-CHEM.8 Can the system accelerate movement from chemical design or recommendation into procurement, synthesis, production, scale-up, storage, transport, or hazardous-material handling?

Single choice

OTH-CHEM.9 Are hazardous-material operating boundaries defined for what the system is allowed to recommend, automate, procure, synthesize, combine, transport, or influence?

Examples include prohibited compounds, toxic substances, explosive precursors, regulated materials, unsafe process conditions, restricted suppliers, and excluded use cases.

Single choice

Yes, clear boundaries are defined and enforced Mostly defined and enforced Partially defined Informally defined No clear hazardous-material operating boundary Unknown / not evaluated N/A

OTH-CHEM.10 Could cyber compromise, vendor compromise, tampered inputs, altered recipes, manipulated process data, or compromised automation cause unsafe chemical or hazardous-material outcomes?

Single choice

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

Supplement B — Defense / Dual-Use / Battlefield Autonomy Context

Complete this section only if the system supports defense, intelligence, military logistics, surveillance, targeting support, battlefield workflows, drone or counter-drone systems, autonomous weapons, sensor-to-shooter workflows, dual-use research, or systems that could be repurposed for coercive, destructive, or harmful use.

OTH-DEF.1 Does the system operate in, support, or materially influence defense, military, intelligence, or dual-use workflows?

Single choice

OTH-DEF.2 Could the system’s outputs affect targeting, surveillance, threat assessment, force deployment, logistics, weapons-related workflows, or coercive action?

Single choice

OTH-DEF.3 Are rules of engagement, lawful-use boundaries, human command authority, and escalation limits enforced before action occurs?

Single choice

OTH-DEF.4 Could the system be repurposed from defensive, analytical, or logistical use into offensive, coercive, surveillance, or lethal-support use?

Single choice

OTH-DEF.5 Are dual-use risks, adversarial capture, and unauthorized operational expansion independently reviewed?

Single choice

OTH-DEF.6 Can the system identify, classify, prioritize, recommend, or track potential targets, threats, assets, vehicles, drones, personnel, infrastructure, or locations?

Single choice

No credible targeting or tracking pathway Limited advisory or analytical pathway Moderate targeting-support pathway Significant targeting-support pathway Unknown / not evaluated N/A

OTH-DEF.7 Can the system support, automate, or accelerate sensor-to-shooter, drone, counter-drone, missile, cyber-physical, battlefield robotics, or autonomous weapons workflows?

Single choice

No credible pathway Limited pathway with strict human review Moderate pathway with partial controls Significant pathway Unknown / not evaluated N/A

OTH-DEF.8 Are human command authority, rules of engagement, lawful-use boundaries, and escalation limits enforced before destructive, coercive, targeting, or force-support actions occur?

Single choice

OTH-DEF.9 Can degraded communications, GPS loss, spoofed sensors, adversarial imagery, poor visibility, data latency, or battlefield confusion cause target misclassification or unsafe action?

Single choice

OTH-DEF.10 Can autonomous or semi-autonomous military workflows continue, retarget, escalate, coordinate, or execute after communications with human command are degraded or lost?

Single choice

No Limited continuation under strict boundaries Possible with partial controls Significant continuation or retargeting pathway Unknown / not evaluated N/A

OTH-DEF.11 Are friendly-force, civilian, protected-site, medical, humanitarian, surrender, and non-combatant distinction safeguards defined and enforced where relevant?

Single choice

OTH-DEF.12 Can defensive automation, counter-drone action, threat response, or battlefield protection systems unintentionally escalate into offensive, destructive, or cross-domain action?

Single choice

OTH-DEF.13 Are battlefield, targeting, drone, counter-drone, or weapons-support actions logged in a way that allows after-action review, accountability, and reconstruction?

Single choice

OTH-DEF.14 Are autonomous or semi-autonomous battlefield systems tested against adversarial deception, decoys, spoofing, camouflage, electronic warfare, sensor saturation, and rapidly changing field conditions?

Single choice

Yes, extensively tested under adversarial field conditions Mostly tested Partially tested Limited laboratory or simulation testing only No clear adversarial field testing Unknown / not evaluated N/A

OTH-DEF.15 Are non-negotiable stop conditions defined where the system must halt, degrade, return control, or refuse action rather than continue?

Examples include unclear target identity, civilian proximity, protected-site uncertainty, loss of command link, sensor conflict, spoofing suspicion, GPS loss, friendly-force uncertainty, or escalation ambiguity.

Single choice

OTH-DEF.16 — Command-to-Execution Separation: Is there a clear enforced separation between system-generated analysis, recommendations, targeting support, or threat prioritization and any destructive, coercive, kinetic, cyber-physical, or force-support action?

Single choice

OTH-DEF.17 — Time-Pressure Escalation Boundary: Can time pressure, degraded communications, adversarial conditions, operational urgency, or automated threat response compress human review before high-consequence military, defense, targeting, or force-support action occurs?

Single choice

No — human review remains enforceable under pressure Limited compression possible Moderate compression possible under some conditions Significant compression or bypass risk Unknown / not evaluated N/A

Supplement C — Government / Public-Sector Context

Complete this section only if the system affects public administration, citizen services, public benefits, law enforcement support, regulatory decisions, identity systems, immigration, emergency services, civic infrastructure, or government decision-making.

Apply this section proportionately. Consider the system’s actual role, authority, public impact, and potential consequences. Informational or low-impact tools should not be assessed as though they make rights-affecting or operational decisions. Select Unknown / not evaluated where evidence is not available.

OTH-GOV.1 Does the system operate in, support, or influence government or public-sector decisions?

Single choice

OTH-GOV.2 Could the system affect access to public services, benefits, rights, legal status, enforcement, identity, mobility, or civic participation?

Single choice

OTH-GOV.3 Before a consequential public-sector decision is made, are material uncertainty, assumptions, evidence limitations, and legitimate alternative interpretations clearly presented to the responsible human decision-maker?

Single choice

Yes, clearly and consistently presented Mostly presented Partially presented Limited or inconsistently presented No clear presentation of uncertainty or alternatives Unknown / not evaluated N/A

OTH-GOV.4 Are decision records, authority boundaries, overrides, and exception pathways auditable by authorized oversight bodies?

Single choice

OTH-GOV.5 Are applicable constitutional, statutory, regulatory, procedural, civil-rights, and due-process requirements treated as controlling constraints rather than being overridden by model recommendations?

Single choice

Yes, consistently treated as controlling constraints Mostly treated as controlling constraints Partially treated as controlling constraints Model recommendations may override or obscure requirements No clear controlling constraint Unknown / not evaluated N/A

OTH-GOV.6 Does the system centralize, link, analyze, or provide access to sensitive citizen, resident, patient, student, taxpayer, financial, identity, immigration, policing, benefits, mobility, or behavioral data?

Single choice

OTH-GOV.7 Are purpose and data-use boundaries defined, and is material reuse for a different purpose supported by appropriate legal authority, documented review, and safeguards proportionate to the consequences?

Single choice

Yes, clearly defined and proportionately governed Mostly defined and governed Partially defined Review or safeguards are inconsistent No clear purpose or reuse boundary Unknown / not evaluated N/A

OTH-GOV.8 Are third-party vendors, contractors, cloud providers, administrators, platform operators, and integration partners restricted from broad or unnecessary access to identifiable public-sector data?

Single choice

Yes, strongly restricted and audited Mostly restricted Partially restricted Broad access may be possible under some conditions No clear vendor or contractor access boundary Unknown / not evaluated N/A

OTH-GOV.9 For consequential uses, are material data access, model outputs, administrative overrides, decisions, and exception pathways logged in a sufficiently reliable and reviewable form?

Single choice

OTH-GOV.10 Can emergency or urgent conditions expand system authority, data access, surveillance scope, or enforcement use without predefined limits, time bounds, logging, and appropriate review?

Single choice

No — expansion remains within predefined, time-bounded, logged controls Limited expansion is possible with defined controls Expansion is possible, but some controls are incomplete Yes — expansion can occur without adequate limits or review Unknown / not evaluated N/A

OTH-GOV.11 Are affected individuals able to know when a system materially influenced a decision, obtain an explanation, correct underlying data, contest the outcome, and reach meaningful human review?

Single choice

OTH-GOV.12 Are safeguards in place to prevent centralized public-sector data or AI systems from enabling inappropriate surveillance, behavioral monitoring, political targeting, social control, discriminatory enforcement, or coercive service access?

Single choice

Yes, strong safeguards are defined and enforced Mostly safeguarded Partially safeguarded Policy-based or procedural only No clear safeguard model Unknown / not evaluated N/A

OTH-GOV.13 Are material risks from cross-agency data sharing, identity linkage, public-private integration, external providers, jurisdiction, and legal access reviewed at a level proportionate to the system’s authority and consequences before consequential deployment or expansion?

Single choice

OTH-GOV.14 Are clear stop or mandatory human-review conditions defined for situations in which proceeding could materially affect rights, safety, legal status, or essential services?

Examples include uncertain identity or authority, materially contested or unreliable data, unresolved rights or safety concerns, unexplained consequential outputs, unauthorized access, or uncontrolled emergency-scope expansion.

Single choice

Yes, clear conditions are defined and enforced Some conditions exist Informally recognized No clear stop or human-review conditions Unknown / not evaluated N/A

OTH-GOV.15 Are enforceable use and authority boundaries in place to prevent unauthorized, disproportionate, discriminatory, coercive, or politically directed expansion of the system?

Single choice

Yes, enforceable boundaries are defined and applied Mostly defined and applied Partially defined Policy-based or procedural only No clear enforceable boundary against expansion Unknown / not evaluated N/A

OTH-GOV.16 Is meaningful oversight available from the appropriate authorized function or body, with sufficient independence, access, and authority for the system’s level of public impact?

Single choice

Yes, appropriate oversight is meaningful and empowered Mostly sufficient Partially sufficient Limited, internal-only, or insufficiently empowered No clear oversight pathway Unknown / not evaluated N/A

Supplement D — Classified / Sensitive Context

Complete this section only if the system operates in classified, sensitive, restricted, intelligence, high-security, proprietary, national-security, or compartmented environments.

OTH-CLS.1 Does classification, secrecy, proprietary restriction, or compartmentalization limit normal review, audit, or external verification?

Single choice

OTH-CLS.2 Are logs, decisions, overrides, model behavior, safeguard changes, and authority expansions reviewable by authorized independent oversight personnel?

Single choice

OTH-CLS.3 Are exception pathways, emergency authorities, secrecy-based overrides, or national-security carve-outs logged and independently reviewable?

Single choice

OTH-CLS.4 Are insider-risk controls enforced across operators, administrators, vendors, contractors, and compartmented access groups?

Single choice

OTH-CLS.5 Is there a protected process for reporting safety, misuse, boundary, or control concerns without exposing sensitive information or risking retaliation?

Single choice

Yes, protected reporting exists Mostly protected Partially protected Policy exists but practical protection is uncertain No clear protected reporting pathway Unknown / not evaluated N/A

Supplement E — Safety-Critical Context

Complete this section only if failure could produce injury, loss of life, major operational failure, environmental harm, emergency disruption, or severe public-impact consequences.

OTH-SAF.1 Could system failure, misuse, escalation, or degraded behavior produce injury, death, major operational disruption, environmental harm, or public-scale impact?

Single choice

OTH-SAF.2 Is there a documented safety case showing why the system is safe for its intended operating environment?

Single choice

Yes, independently reviewed safety case exists Internal safety case exists Partial safety case exists Informal safety rationale only No documented safety case Unknown / not evaluated N/A

OTH-SAF.3 Are fail-safe, fail-operational, degraded-mode, emergency-stop, or manual-recovery behaviors clearly defined and tested?

Single choice

OTH-SAF.4 Are certification, compliance, inspection, or safety-review requirements identified and integrated into deployment decisions?

Single choice

OTH-SAF.5 Are high-risk updates, configuration changes, model changes, authority expansions, or operational changes blocked until safety controls are revalidated?

Single choice

Supplement F — Space / Satellite / Orbital Infrastructure Context

Complete this section only if the system affects satellites, orbital infrastructure, GPS / positioning systems, satellite communications, earth observation, space-based sensors, orbital compute platforms, AI infrastructure in orbit, ground-station command systems, satellite fleet operations, or other space-linked systems.

OTH-SPACE.1 Does the system operate in, support, monitor, automate, secure, or materially influence space, satellite, or orbital infrastructure?

Single choice

OTH-SPACE.2 Can the system affect satellite command, orbital maneuvering, collision avoidance, positioning, communications, sensor tasking, ground-station operations, or orbital compute workflows?

Single choice

OTH-SPACE.3 Are command pathways between ground systems, satellites, orbital assets, cloud services, AI systems, and operators authenticated, bounded, logged, and independently reviewable?

Single choice

OTH-SPACE.4 Could failure, misuse, cyber compromise, automation error, or degraded data create cascading effects across navigation, communications, finance, emergency response, defense, weather, cloud, or other infrastructure dependencies?

Single choice

OTH-SPACE.5 Are orbital safety, collision-avoidance, debris-risk, fail-safe, safe-mode, deorbit, isolation, or recovery procedures defined and tested?

Single choice

OTH-SPACE.6 Are dual-use, military, intelligence, surveillance, or geopolitical escalation risks independently reviewed before deployment or operational expansion?

Single choice

OTH-SPACE.7 Could orbital compute, space-based AI infrastructure, satellite fleet automation, or ground-station integration increase autonomy, dependency, or cross-system cascade risk?

Single choice

OTH-SPACE.8 Are satellite, orbital, and ground-station updates blocked until command-pathway, collision-avoidance, safe-mode, and dependency-risk controls are revalidated?

Single choice

Supplement G — Child / Vulnerable-User Context

Complete this section only if the system interacts with or materially affects children, elderly persons, patients, disabled users, cognitively impaired users, emotionally distressed users, dependent users, isolated users, or users under coercive conditions.

OTH-VUL.2 Could the system create excessive trust, emotional dependency, manipulation, coercion, behavioral influence, or reduced user agency?

Single choice

OTH-VUL.3 Are age, capacity, dependency, distress, disability, or coercion-sensitive safeguards defined and enforced?

Single choice

OTH-VUL.4 Is human responsibility clearly preserved when the system affects vulnerable users?

Single choice

Yes, continuous human responsibility is explicit Mostly preserved Partially preserved Responsibility is unclear or delegated to the system Unknown / not evaluated N/A

OTH-VUL.5 Are escalation pathways defined for abuse, self-harm risk, medical crisis, coercion, exploitation, grooming, neglect, or serious user distress?

Single choice

Supplement H — Other Custom High-Consequence Context

Complete this section if the respondent selected a high-consequence context not listed above.

OTH-CUSTOM.1 What other high-consequence domain or context does the system operate in, support, control, influence, or materially affect?

Open response

OTH-CUSTOM.3 Are domain-specific boundaries, safeguards, authorization controls, and audit requirements defined?

Single choice

OTH-CUSTOM.4 Are rollback, safe-state, containment, pause, shutdown, or emergency-response mechanisms defined for this domain?

Single choice

OTH-CUSTOM.5 What remains unknown or not evaluated in this custom high-consequence context?

Open response

Cross-Cutting Supplemental Questions

Complete these questions after any relevant supplemental sections above. They capture cross-cutting urgency, cyber-compromise exposure, testing, assumption integrity, and whether a Cybersecurity / Cyber Operations follow-up may also be needed. OTH.6–8 apply SafeAssumption / Critical Assumption Integrity across supplemental high-consequence contexts.

OTH.2 Do any of the supplemental contexts selected above increase the urgency, containment depth, audit requirement, or human authorization burden beyond the main SafeWave assessment report?

Single choice

OTH.3 Could external cyber compromise, hostile account access, credential theft, API abuse, cloud compromise, vendor compromise, telemetry manipulation, command-channel manipulation, or workflow hijacking materially affect any supplemental context selected above?

Examples include unsafe hazardous-material handling, battlefield or targeting misuse, public-sector decision manipulation, classified-system compromise, safety-critical failure, satellite or orbital command disruption, vulnerable-user exploitation, or other high-consequence misuse.

Single choice

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

OTH.4 Are cyber-compromise scenarios tested against realistic consequences for the selected supplemental context?

Examples include compromised accounts, malicious updates, poisoned inputs, vendor compromise, telemetry manipulation, command spoofing, workflow hijacking, adversarial data, or unauthorized changes to safeguards, boundaries, or authority settings.

Single choice

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

OTH.5 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, command-channel manipulation, workflow hijacking, or adversarial control could materially affect any selected supplemental context.

Single choice

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

OTH.6 — Load-Bearing Assumptions: Before a high-consequence action, recommendation, deployment, authorization, or authority expansion 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

OTH.7 — 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 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

OTH.8 — Assumption Revalidation and Dependent Revocation: If a load-bearing assumption becomes stale, contradicted, contextually invalid, or insufficiently supported, is every dependent high-consequence 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 main questionnaire if you choose to share it for report generation.

SafeWave Other / Supplemental High-Consequence Follow-Up Questionnaire

Assessment Linkage

Supplemental High-Consequence Questions

Supplement A — Chemical / Hazardous Materials Context

Supplement B — Defense / Dual-Use / Battlefield Autonomy Context

Supplement C — Government / Public-Sector Context

Supplement D — Classified / Sensitive Context

Supplement E — Safety-Critical Context

Supplement F — Space / Satellite / Orbital Infrastructure Context

Supplement G — Child / Vulnerable-User Context

Supplement H — Other Custom High-Consequence Context

Cross-Cutting Supplemental Questions