An Evaluation Framework for National AI Regulation

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.

The most capable general-purpose AI (GPAI) models are mostly built in two jurisdictions, the United States and China, but the risks they carry land globally. Regionally advanced economies hosting no frontier developer, which we call AI middle-powers, are writing their own rules to govern GPAI. This paper investigates which GPAI-relevant provisions these AI middle-powers have enacted, mapping twenty jurisdictions including the European Union at the level of the individual provision, across four governance areas that trace the accountability chain for the model layer: systemic risk assessment, evaluation and verification, prohibitions with monitoring and detection, and serious incident reporting. Confirmed absence is recorded as data alongside positive provision. We find that jurisdictions converge on form, but diverge on force. Sixteen engage in at least three of the four governance areas, yet only about one in five provisions sit in binding law, and three-quarters of the instruments that do bind do so without defining GPAI. The institutional infrastructure shows the same shape: four in five of the mapped governance actors hold mandates that predate GPAI, and obligations attach wherever the inherited regime already reached, which is the application layer rather than the model. Where these states engage the model layer, they build capacity to observe it rather than impose duties on those who build it, and almost every evaluation body was constituted without the power to act on what it finds. Nominal coverage of the full accountability chain reaches eleven jurisdictions, but only five hold more than one provision in every area and, outside the EU, no jurisdiction imposes a binding evaluation duty on a model developer. The dataset gives researchers and policymakers a provision-level basis for identifying where regimes could align, and where coordination would have to start from scratch.

Governments worldwide have responded to the rapid expansion of AI by publishing national and regional AI strategies. Comparing national and regional AI strategies to identify their convergences and divergences can uncover their common practices, understand regional variations, and provide policy designers a comprehensive set of policy design elements for their ongoing AI strategy developments. Yet, existing work has not examined their underlying policy design elements or assessed whether those elements are horizontally (country-to-country) or vertical (region-to-country) converging or diverging over time. This paper addresses that gap by coding and analyzing 74 national and 3 regional AI strategies drawn from a global scan of all 205 UN member and non-member states. The coding used a latent-inductive approach organized around three functional policy design elements: goals, approaches, and principles. Two research questions guided the analysis: to what degree are national AI strategies becoming horizontally convergent or divergent over time; and to what degree are national strategies becoming vertically convergent or divergent with those countries' regional AI strategy. Results indicate strong horizontal convergence around economic competitiveness, research support, and ethical AI use, alongside persistent divergence in human rights goals, participatory governance approaches, and human-centric principles. Across the three regions, the AU exhibits the highest vertical convergence, the EU demonstrated strong alignment on regulatory and economic priorities but diverges on human-centric values, and the Nordic-Baltic Region displays mixed vertical convergence. These findings offer policy designers a comprehensive evidence base for identifying emerging AI policy design choice norms as AI strategies are developed and updated.