# An Evaluation Framework for National AI Regulation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.15417 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.15417/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 14 of its 251 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 15 Aug 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 14 of 14)

- [DeepSeek-V3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.19437/) (2024)
- [AI Alignment: A Comprehensive Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.19852/) (2023)
- [An Overview of Catastrophic AI Risks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.12001/) (2023)
- [PhoBERT: Pre-trained language models for Vietnamese](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2003.00744/) (2020)
- [Artificial Intelligence Index Report 2025](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.07139/) (2025)
- [The 2025 AI Agent Index: Documenting Technical and Safety Features of Deployed Agentic AI Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.17753/) (2026)
- [The AI risk repository: A meta-review, database, and taxonomy of risks from artificial intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.12622/) (2024)
- [Actionable Principles for Artificial Intelligence Policy: Three Pathways](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.12406/) (2021)
- [A Grading Rubric for AI Safety Frameworks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.08751/) (2024)
- [Comparative Global AI Regulation: Policy Perspectives from the EU, China, and the US](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21279/) (2024)
- [A Comprehensive Review and Systematic Analysis of Artificial Intelligence Regulation Policies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.12218/) (2023)
- [Evaluating AI Providers' Frontier Safety Frameworks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.01166/) (2025)
- [AI Governance InternationaL Evaluation Index (AGILE Index) 2025](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.11546/) (2025)
- [Global Index on Responsible AI: 2026 Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.14782/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Governments use laws, institutions, funding programs and nonbinding guidance to shape how AI is developed and used. Comparing these national approaches is difficult. A binding rule and a detailed voluntary framework can address the same problem but create different duties. The resources needed to carry them out also differ by jurisdiction. This paper develops an evaluation framework for the documented design and implementation readiness of national AI policy. The comparison covers China, India, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States. The European Union is included as a supranational comparator. The framework evaluates a versioned portfolio of official instruments rather than one prominent law or strategy. Its criteria ask whether the portfolio governs serious AI risks and whether responsible institutions can implement its commitments. They examine coverage across the AI lifecycle and the protections available to people affected by AI systems. Public benefit and responsible innovation remain a separate part of the assessment. Each sub-criterion is scored through ordered anchors and tied to the provision that supports the judgment. The protocol also records the source search, missing evidence, included instruments and cutoff date. The result is a traceable comparison of policy content that keeps category differences visible. It evaluates what a portfolio provides on paper. It does not estimate enforcement success or policy outcomes.