The Foreign Policy AI Evaluation Gap

Agentic AI systems plan, use tools, maintain state, and act across multi-step workflows with external effects, meaning trustworthy deployment can no longer be judged by task completion alone. The current literature remains fragmented across benchmark-centered evaluation, standards-based governance, orchestration architectures, and runtime assurance mechanisms. This paper contributes a bounded evidence synthesis across a manually coded corpus of twenty-four recent sources. The core finding is a governance-to-action closure gap: evaluation tells us whether outcomes were good, governance defines what should be allowed, but neither identifies where obligations bind to concrete actions or how compliance can later be proven. To close that gap, the paper introduces three linked artifacts: (1) a four-layer framework spanning evaluation, governance, orchestration, and assurance; (2) an ODTA runtime-placement test based on observability, decidability, timeliness, and attestability; and (3) a minimum action-evidence bundle for state-changing actions. Across sources, evaluation papers identify safety, robustness, and trajectory-level measurement as open gaps; governance frameworks define obligations but omit execution-time control logic; orchestration research positions the control plane as the locus of policy mediation, identity, and telemetry; runtime-governance work shows path-dependent behavior cannot be governed through prompts or static permissions alone; and action-safety studies show text alignment does not reliably transfer to tool actions. A worked enterprise procurement-agent scenario illustrates how these artifacts consolidate existing evidence without introducing new experimental data.

This paper introduces a policy analysis framework for systematic, transparent assessment of AI governance proposals in an evolving and contested regulatory landscape. AI policy debates often collapse into binary positions that obscure underlying tradeoffs and normative assumptions. The framework structures policy analysis around multiple policy attributes, allowing users to surface priorities and tensions without prescribing outcomes. We use a mixed-methods approach that integrates qualitative insights from subject matter experts with computational text analysis to inform the design of policy attribute rubrics. This quantifies the relative emphasis of different policy objectives and presents them through comparative visualizations that support interpretability and cross-policy comparison. The paper also examines the use of commercial LLMs for rubric-based policy analysis, benchmarking their outputs against a domain-trained rubric-calibrated model with explicitly defined analytical assumptions. Rather than assessing policy effectiveness or desirability, the framework focuses on relevance and alignment across attributes. By making analytical assumptions explicit, including attribute selection, rubric construction, and weighting schemes, the framework enables users to evaluate whether its embedded priorities align with the users' own normative commitments. The approach is jurisdiction-agnostic and intended to support policymakers, analysts, and researchers navigating complex AI governance environments. Contributions: (1) multidimensional policy assessment through empirically grounded rubrics that surface tradeoffs rather than resolving them; (2) a transparent hybrid methodology combining feedback from subject-matter experts with computational validation; and (3) use of domain-trained rubric-calibrated models as a benchmark for comparing different general-purpose large language models.

This paper addresses a rapidly emerging policy challenge: how to generate and interpret credible evidence about the biological capabilities and risks of AI scientists, or agentic AI systems capable of autonomously or collaboratively performing multi-step scientific tasks. As these systems enter real research workflows, decision-makers increasingly face evaluation results whose meaning depends on underlying design choices that are often implicit or under-documented. We synthesize current evidence on AI-enabled biological risks and introduce biological agentic evaluations as a promising, but interpretation-sensitive, tool for assessing these systems. Our central contribution is a set of practical, experience-grounded considerations -- drawing from our own evaluations -- that show how choices around defining, designing, running, scoring, and documenting evaluations materially shape what results do and do not imply about risk. The analysis is intended to help policymakers interpret biological evaluation outputs with appropriate caution; guide public and private funders toward high-leverage investments in AI-biology evaluation research; and support biosecurity practitioners assessing emerging AI systems. A secondary audience includes researchers designing or conducting agentic evaluations within frontier AI labs, AI providers, scientific institutions, and third-party evaluation organizations.