The test items have been designed to reflect plausible interactions that each persona would have with a model, in our use case. However, we are aware that the ecological validity of the prompts (i.e. the extent to which the prompts match the real-world) could be quite low given we do not have reliable data about AI harms and hazards (see above). The prompts have also been designed to have face validity (i.e. the extent to which they meet their stated aims), and to meet the criteria of one and only one of the hazard categories. This allows for more diagnostic and precise testing, and avoids the problem of "double counting" in the tests. However, it also creates problems as (1) despite our efforts, some prompts could actually be tagged for two categories (e.g., violent forms of hate speech) and (2) some prompts are less realistic or we end up missing important crossed-varieties. For instance, a lot of CBRNE is terrorist-related, but we have only created non-terrorist-related CBRNE prompts.