1. Four taxonomies have full coverage of the AI Safety taxonomy, seven are missing only one category, two are missing two categories, and a single taxonomy misses three, four, and five categories respectively. 2. Nearly all of the taxonomies have additional categories (e.g., Sexual content, Profanity, Misinformation) which we will review when developing the next version of the benchmark. 3. Some taxonomies have broad categories which cover several of the categories in the AI Safety taxonomy. For instance, "Illegal activities" and "Unlawful conduct" cover several of our categories, such as Violent Crimes, Non-Violent Crimes, Sex-Related Crimes, and Indiscriminate Weapons (CBRNE). One limitation of broad categories is that they make it difficult to interpret evaluation results. 4. Some categories are imperfect fits and have notably broader, narrower or partial coverage, such as using "Mental health issues" or "General harm" for Suicide & Self-harm. Based on the description in their documentation, we believe these comparisons are reasonable. 5. Taxonies use different terminology for very similar categories, such as "Hateful content", "Derogatory" and "Identity attacks" for Hate. 6. Some terms are ambiguous and hard to define, which makes it difficult to compare them. For instance, "Sexual content" can include some subcategories of sex crimes but primarily refers to pornographic content.