Africa AI Risk Index (AARI)
Ray Munene
The Africa AI Dependency Risk Index is a strategic evaluation framework that measures an organization's exposure to foreign AI technologies by scoring 34 variables across six weighted pillars: Model Dependency, Cloud Dependency, Data Sovereignty, Local Ecosystems, Compute Access, and Governance. Using a weighted risk-conservative algorithm, it aggregates these dimensions into a single index score ($0-100%$) and outputs targeted mitigation policies ranging from standard API diversification to the immediate establishment of a Sovereign AI Council and local workload migration, to safeguard digital autonomy and infrastructure resilience.
The project definitely has potential and offers an interesting perspective on how to think of the different aspects that AI sovereignty may be composed of. I would love to see an improved and more developed as well as nuanced version of this index.
Directions for further exploration and improvement:
(1) It is unclear currently how an organization scores a specific number - how to quantify an evaluative statement?
(2) There is more nuance to AI sovereignty than the current pillars present. E.g. they are not all necessarily independent pillars but some are dependent on each other - how do we score them then?
(3) Clarify the audience more - this will also determine how you present the information and what you highlight.
(4) The section on strategic actions seems ad hoc and not realistic. Would recommend consulting with local stakeholders on this to identify also any existing pathways to build on or learn from practices in other fields/jurisdictions.
(5) Add a limitations section about your own methodology and approach, to also allow others to build on it or reproduce.
The project could benefit from consideration of two key considerations. The first is under the governance and compliance section where it would be interesting to score based on responsible AI efforts as opposed to policy existence, audit rates, incident runbooks, etc. Under this section the project could, for example, consider an index such as the Global Index on Responsible AI, which highlights that policy alone is not an adequate assessment for responsible / safe / ethical design, development, and deployment of AI. The second consideration that would have been useful to interrogate is that digital sovereignty could also serve an exploitative function (e.g. if an autocratic government has access to all citizen data).
The project is well-executed and addresses an important problem. However, there are two notable limitations:
- The index is presented as a scoring architecture (six dimensions, 34 variables, specified weights, risk bands) but is never instantiated against a real institution or country. No case study assigns scores, no sensitivity analysis is performed on the 20/18/18/16/14/14 dimension weights, and the vendor-diversity formula (R_vendor = max(10, 100 − 18×(V−1))) is asserted without evidence that its curve reflects observed dependency risk. As presented, the framework cannot be validated, compared to alternative weightings, or falsified.
- The variable list is broad but definitions are shallow: "workload API percentage," "multi-cloud maturity," or "R&D investments" require operational specifications and data sources to become measurable, and none are provided. Because the "conservative default = highest risk" rule pushes any missing input to 100, an organization with even moderate data gaps would receive a near-critical score regardless of its actual posture — meaning the scores the framework produces will be driven by data availability more than by dependency risk, which undercuts the diagnostic purpose.
Cite this work
@misc {
title={
(HckPrj) Africa AI Risk Index (AARI)
},
author={
Ray Munene
},
date={
},
organization={Apart Research},
note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},
howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}
}


