The BaseResearcharXiv
Who Can Evaluate AI Independently? A Framework for Analysing Evaluation Infrastructure
According to the abstract, Adan, Wiaterek and five co-authors propose a framework for asking who controls the infrastructure of AI evaluation, and apply it to twelve African evaluation projects and to the international network of AI Safety Institutes' three joint testing exercises.
Why it matters
The same thing, for different readers.
What it means for you
Adan and colleagues argue that taking part in testing AI matters less than owning the computers and setting the methods, so a seat at the table can be weak.
For lawmakers
Adan and colleagues say that for AI evaluation to work as governance, participating countries need control over priorities, methods, publication and continuity, not only access.
For researchers
Adan and colleagues offer the PAAI framework (Power, Access, Adequacy, Independence) for analysing who controls evaluation infrastructure, tested on twelve African projects and ten institutes.
In their own words
Every quotation was found, word for word, in the text we saved from the source. That shows the words are there; it does not make them true, or prove the speaker meant them as quoted.
From the source’s own text.
“Participation in evaluation does not by itself produce evaluative authority. For evaluation to serve as a credible governance mechanism, access must come with control over priorities, methods, publication and continuity.”
“the institutes that led each exercise also ran the models, while Kenya, the network's only African member, moved from annotation to task design with no documented model execution.”
How the finding was reached
In our words, from the source. Weigh the finding by how it was made.
- What was done
- A framework (PAAI) applied to twelve African AI evaluation projects from 2022 to 2025 and to the documented roles of all ten member institutes in the three published joint testing exercises of the international network of AI Safety Institutes.
- What it found
- Three recurring configurations: extractive collaboration, dependent innovation and constrained independence. Design authority without infrastructure authority never yielded more than partial independence; in the joint exercises the leading institutes also ran the models.
- What it does not show
- Not stated in the abstract; only the abstract was read. The joint-exercise analysis rests on documented roles in published exercises.
- Status
- A preprint: not yet peer reviewed
The record
- Questions
- Who can demand evidence, delay a release or stop an unsafe deployment?
- People
- Sumaya Nur Adan (Wrote it) · Joanna Wiaterek (Wrote it) · Nourhan Abdelrhim (Wrote it) · Sydney Reis (Wrote it) · Robert F. Trager (Wrote it) · Benjamin Rosman (Wrote it) · Marina Jirotka (Wrote it)
- What we read
- We read the abstract.
- Found by
- The Radar, run of November 6, 2026, via
arxiv-ai-safety-query(tier 1: the source’s own channel or an official record) - Cite this
- arXiv, “Who Can Evaluate AI Independently? A Framework for Analysing Evaluation Infrastructure”, November 5, 2026. Entry in the Ctrl AI Base, https://ctrlai.com/base/arxiv-2026-11-05-who-can-evaluate-ai-independently