Arclight
Shivangi Gupta, Saurabh Gupta, Shruti kumari, Shruti Gupta, Siddhi Garg
Arclight is an AI Dependency Intelligence platform that helps organizations map AI ecosystems, assess resilience risks, simulate disruptions, and generate strategies to reduce dependency-related failures.
Arclight presents a thoughtful approach to AI dependency intelligence by combining dependency mapping, sovereignty assessment, shock simulation, and resilience planning into a cohesive platform. The project goes beyond a UI mockup by implementing graph-based dependency traversal, node criticality analysis, redundancy detection, explainable sovereignty scoring, and actionable resilience recommendations, demonstrating a solid understanding of enterprise AI infrastructure. The architecture is modular and the application is polished, making the workflow easy to understand and explore. To further strengthen the project, future iterations could integrate live enterprise data sources such as cloud platforms, service catalogs, observability tools, or API gateways to automatically discover dependencies and validate the scoring model against real-world infrastructure. Demonstrating the platform on a realistic production-scale environment would further showcase its practical value and strengthen confidence in the proposed methodology.
Your safety thinking is correct. Answer only from trusted sources, show the source, and refuse when there is no good evidence. After you shared the code I can see there is a working app now, a chat screen connected to Gemini, so it is not only a plan and I raised the execution score for that. But the app is not the system the report describes. There is no real retrieval, no source database, and no refusal step. It is a normal Gemini chatbot with a small hardcoded list of political records, plus a lot of Google permissions (full Gmail, Drive, Sheets) that have nothing to do with the safety idea. I also see in the repository that the same project was sent to other hackathons under the name ElectAI, so it looks reused. Please build the retrieval and the refuse parts that you describe, remove the leftover cite tags in the report, and remove the permissions you do not need.
There is a solid path towards a working product.
To improve:
1. Make the paper match what is actually built. The described stack doesn't match the project's.
2. Alter the scoring naming as it's not AI-powered. Similarly, “continuously crawled” should be replaced with “static seed data.”
3. Source the market statistics. Several claims are cited without references that the reader can verify.
4. Add a findings and limitations section. The scoring weights are an unvalidated heuristic, so explain how they were chosen and what evidence would change them.
5. Add a clearer AI safety and Global South connection, since both are currently underdeveloped for this venue.
Cite this work
@misc {
title={
(HckPrj) Arclight
},
author={
Shivangi Gupta, Saurabh Gupta, Shruti kumari, Shruti Gupta, Siddhi Garg
},
date={
},
organization={Apart Research},
note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},
howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}
}


