Asia AI Governance Compliance-Gap Checker
Dhruv Rajput, Kunal Sharma, Hritick Kushwaha
A research-backed cross-jurisdictional AI governance compliance tool covering Vietnam (Law No. 134/2025/QH15), India (Seven Sutras + DPDP Act 2023), China (sector-specific CAC regulations: GenAI Measures, Deep Synthesis, Algorithmic Recommendation, GB 45438-2025), and the ASEAN Guide on AI Governance and Ethics (2024).
We built a structured JSON governance matrix (4 frameworks × 12 compliance dimensions, every field source-cited with URL, date, and confidence tag) and identified 7 genuine cross-jurisdictional conflicts — cases where satisfying one jurisdiction's requirements makes another's difficult or impossible (e.g., China's mandatory data localization vs. India's cross-border transfer model; Vietnam + China's pre-deployment conformity gates vs. India's explicit ex-post-only model).
The interactive compliance checker takes a free-text AI product description, injects the full governance matrix into a Gemini API prompt as grounding context — not model memory — and returns per-jurisdiction compliance status cards plus flagged conflicts applicable to that specific product. Tested on 4 example products: GenAI banking chatbot, hiring/recruitment AI, deepfake detection tool, and facial recognition surveillance system.
Sub-track: Governance and Geopolitics (AI compliance, cross-border governance harmonization).
3/3/4
Criteria 1 - Impact Potential & Innovation: 3
Criteria 2 - Execution Quality: 3
Criteria 3 - Presentation & Clarity: 4
Well-organized and easy to follow, the thing this is missing is this looks like a project report REPORT_DRAFT.md than a regular paper. The project is executable. The "prevents hallucination" claim is asserted, not demonstrated .
Clear problem, reasonable approach.
I like that the project presents a strong research prototype and identified a genuine pain point. However, to become a viable product, the project must clearly define its primary user (compliance officers? startup founders? policymakers? researchers? etc), since their conflicting needs heavily dictate design choices. One of the core weaknesses is in validation, since it's relying on self-authored "happy path" examples and secondary sources leaves the accuracy of the underlying matrix and the reliability of the LLM's reasoning unproven. For a compliance tool, the non-deterministic nature of the LLM-as-reasoner architecture introduces an unacceptable risk of varying assessments for identical inputs, suggesting a shift toward deterministic, rule-based logic for the output layer. Additionally, the project relies heavily on a "not legal advice" disclaimer to navigate this unreliability, placing a big question mark on its utility.
For hackathon projects that's building a tool, I'd highly recommend providing a live UI or demo video to present the project in its supposed final form. Additionally, would be nice to provide a simple product roadmap to present the "next steps" for the project and showing that you have a clear vision of its theory of change.
The smart call here is grounding the model only in your injected, source-tagged matrix instead of its training memory. That is the right way to keep regulatory claims honest, and the confidence tags (nine fields flagged unconfirmed) plus the conservative bar for what counts as a real conflict both show discipline. What is missing is proof it works. The four examples are expected outputs reasoned from the matrix, not actual tool runs, so the accuracy is untested. Run it on those four, report actual against expected, even a small audit closes the gap. Then surface the confidence tags in the UI so users see where the ground is soft, nail down the nine unconfirmed fields against primary text, and lose the REPORT_DRAFT title. Useful prototype, honestly bounded. Validate the one thing you did not.
Cite this work
@misc {
title={
(HckPrj) Asia AI Governance Compliance-Gap Checker
},
author={
Dhruv Rajput, Kunal Sharma, Hritick Kushwaha
},
date={
},
organization={Apart Research},
note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},
howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}
}


