AI safety funders invest substantial resources (overview) but don't require grantees to document how they make decisions. Simple governance documentation could improve decision quality and create a shared library of what works. LLMs now make this tractable.
When you apply for AI safety grants (example: OpenPhil Technical AI Safety RFP, AI Governance RFP), funders ask for:
What they don't ask:
For most research this doesn't matter. For AI safety work with dual-use risks and catastrophic downside, it seems important.
This isn't novel - fields where mistakes are catastrophic already require governance documentation:
Clinical trials: Documented decision logs, safety monitoring, and audit trails (Good Clinical Practice standards)
Nuclear facilities: Safety analyses, decision records, and justifications for changes
Space missions: Multi-agency safety reviews with documented objections and resolutions
AI safety research has comparable stakes. Why not comparable documentation?
(Disclaimer: I haven't worked in these fields - this is based on public documentation. If you have domain expertise, corrections welcome.)
LLMs can help:
What used to take hours takes minutes. This could be newly tractable. You would probably want to document prompts to make things less verbose though.
This would build up over time:
Better decisions on high-stakes research. This seems worth the overhead.
Funders: Would you consider this for 2026 grants? Could you coordinate with other major funders?
Researchers: Would this help or hinder your work? What format would be useful vs annoying?
Governance folks: What am I missing? What could go wrong?