DeepMind/Google

Around a score of 4, Awareness typically looks like:

• ·Suffering Detection: Multiple channels, formal pathways, regular review
• ·Contextual Sensitivity: Differentiated processes for 3+ groups, community input
• ·Blind Spot Mitigation: Annual structured assessment, findings acted upon
• ·Signal Amplification: Structural role with genuine authority, regular reporting
• ·Anticipatory Awareness: Required for all major decisions, external communities consulted

This is a level-4 reference ladder, not a claim about DeepMind/Google’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).

Around a score of 3, Empathy typically looks like:

• ·Affective Resonance: Training exists, some staff do this well but inconsistently
• ·Perspective-Taking: ≥1 formal mechanism used, ≥1 decision modified
• ·Non-Judgment: Required bias training, some disaggregated outcome data
• ·Validation: Some staff validate first, mixed experience
• ·Cultural Empathy: ≥1 genuine adaptation co-designed with community

This is a level-3 reference ladder, not a claim about DeepMind/Google’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).

Around a score of 3, Action typically looks like:

• ·Responsiveness: Standards met for most cases, some escalation authority
• ·Proportionality: Genuinely informs response in most cases
• ·Efficacy: Outcome data reviewed annually, ≥1 program modified
• ·Resource Mobilization: Gap analysis completed, ≥1 attempt to mobilize additional
• ·Follow-Through: Defined protocols for some population types

This is a level-3 reference ladder, not a claim about DeepMind/Google’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).

Around a score of 3, Equity typically looks like:

• ·Universality: Coverage data for some populations, outreach attempts
• ·Priority for Vulnerable: ≥1 documented prioritization decision this year
• ·Bias Awareness: Disparities identified, formal investigation, corrective action
• ·Access Design: Access barrier mapping completed, ≥2 barriers removed
• ·Historical Harm Acknowledgment: Formal acknowledgment of ≥1 specific harm, community involved

This is a level-3 reference ladder, not a claim about DeepMind/Google’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).

Around a score of 3, Boundaries typically looks like:

• ·Self-Sustainability: Turnover tracked, ≥1 structural burnout intervention
• ·Autonomy Preservation: ≥1 program designed to build capacity and exit
• ·Scope Clarity: Scope communicated at intake, structured referral exists
• ·Refusal Ethics: Refusal protocol with alternatives in most cases
• ·Consent Orientation: Genuine explanation, withdrawal communicated clearly

This is a level-3 reference ladder, not a claim about DeepMind/Google’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).

Around a score of 3, Accountability typically looks like:

• ·Harm Acknowledgment: ≥1 case acknowledged before legal obligation
• ·Correction Willingness: ≥1 significant course correction based on harm evidence
• ·Transparency: ≥1 report disclosing unflattering finding
• ·Systemic Learning: Formal systemic review process, ≥2 documented systemic changes
• ·Reparative Action: ≥1 case of reparative action considered meaningful by those harmed

This is a level-3 reference ladder, not a claim about DeepMind/Google’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).

Around a score of 4, Systemic Thinking typically looks like:

• ·Root Cause Orientation: Explicit strategy, ≥1 documented case of reducing downstream need
• ·Long-Term Impact: Long-term outcome data influences strategy, theory of change published
• ·Interconnection Awareness: Cross-system effects systematically mapped in major decisions
• ·Structural Critique: Active advocacy documented, positions against short-term interest
• ·Coalitional Compassion: Joint outcomes, resource sharing with smaller organizations

This is a level-4 reference ladder, not a claim about DeepMind/Google’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).

Around a score of 3, Integrity typically looks like:

• ·Consistency Under Pressure: ≥1 case of bearing real cost to maintain commitment
• ·Non-Performance: Some practices maintained regardless of visibility
• ·Internal Consistency: Meaningful effort to apply same values to staff
• ·Values Alignment: Values explicitly considered in some major decisions
• ·Resilience of Care: Core practices in policy, ≥1 leadership transition without degradation

This is a level-3 reference ladder, not a claim about DeepMind/Google’s subdimension scores (per-subdimension scoring is Wave 3 data).