Capabilities, Not Just Domains: A Minimal Amendment for Agentic AI Risk in Brazil's PL 2338/2023

Leo Arruda

Brazil's AI bill (PL 2338/2023) classifies risk by application domains rather than system capabilities. To evaluate this approach, I checked the bill's 80 articles against an eight-dimension framework for agentic risk. Diagnosed important failures of coverage, proposed a minimal amendment, and identified limitations and caveats of the proposed solution.

Reviewer's Comments

Reviewer's Comments

Arrow
Arrow
Arrow

This is a rigorous and concrete legislative analysis. Its strongest feature is that it does not merely assert that PL 2338/2023 is too domain-based; it tests that claim against the statutory text using an explicit coverage framework and then proposes a narrow amendment in legislative form. The eight-dimension framework, the distinction between operative provisions and principle-level language, the adversarial re-read of contestable codings, and the separation between near-term and frontier dimensions are all stronger than typical hackathon work.

The main issue is that the paper does not engage with PL 2338’s SIAPG/systemic-risk chapter as in-depth as it could, taken within the current literature. It does not fully justify the architectural choice to place the main capability trigger in Art. 15 rather than partly or primarily in the bill’s existing systemic-risk architecture. This matters because the EU AI Act precedent cited by the paper places autonomy, scalability, and tool access inside systemic-risk designation criteria for general-purpose AI models. The Art. 15 route is particularly defensible for near-term deployer-side agentic applications, but less clearly suited to the frontier, multi-instance, and ecosystem-level risks the paper also discusses. The paper would be stronger if it explicitly compared these two routes systematically and explained which risk class each route is meant to cover.

Smaller improvements: reduce reliance on the blended Coverage Score and foreground the per-dimension findings instead; commit to a precise placement for the companion provision; cut repetition around the same caveats; and have the article-by-article codings reviewed by a Brazilian digital-law specialist before policy circulation. These issues do not undercut the central finding, which is sound and practically useful: PL 2338 needs a capability-sensitive trigger if it is to handle near-term agentic systems whose risk does not track neatly onto sectoral domains.

I clearly see how the approach described in the paper could be useful for agentic AI regulation beyond the Brazilian case.

The following suggestions are intended to help develop it toward publication or further policy impact:

Deepen the regional argument. The claim that PL 2338 could function as a "regional reference point" for Latin America is briefly asserted but not substantiated. Given the hackathon's Global South focus, this is the most natural vector for expanding impact. A follow-up section or companion piece mapping how Colombia's CONPES 4144/2025, Chile's proposed AI bill, or Mexico's emerging frameworks handle (or fail to handle) the same capability-versus-domain classification question would transform the contribution from a Brazil-specific analysis to a regional one.

Address the enforceability asymmetry more directly. §5 rightly notes that no obligation is enforceable against an unattributable system, but this observation deserves more development in relation to the amendment itself. If the deployers most likely to build systems that cross criterion XI's threshold are also the ones least likely to self-report, what enforcement mechanisms would give the SIA realistic discovery capacity? The paper identifies the problem but could go further in proposing even a provisional answer.

This is a very strong project, it identifies a concrete and timely gap in Brazil’s AI bill and translates it into a narrowly scoped legislative amendment with a clear theory of change. The project is highly innovative in moving from domain-based risk classification to capability-based triggers for agentic AI, while staying practical and avoiding an overbroad “frontier risk” proposal. Execution is very strong for a weekend hackathon, it builds an explicit coding framework, applies it systematically to the legal text, stress-tests contested classifications, uses case studies, and anticipates objections and limitations. Overall, this is great work with clear value for researchers, policymakers, and legislative stakeholders working on agentic AI governance.

Cite this work

@misc {

title={

(HckPrj) Capabilities, Not Just Domains: A Minimal Amendment for Agentic AI Risk in Brazil's PL 2338/2023

},

author={

Leo Arruda

},

date={

},

organization={Apart Research},

note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},

howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}

}

Recent Projects

OliGraph: graph-based screening of large oligopools

Existing synthesis screening tools cannot evaluate short oligonucleotide pools, whose overlapping fragments can be reassembled into regulated sequences via polymerase cycling assembly (PCA) yet fall below gene-length detection thresholds. We present OliGraph, an open-source tool that constructs a bi-directed overlap graph from an oligonucleotide pool and extracts contigs for downstream gene-length screening. An optional PCA mode retains only cross-strand overlaps consistent with PCA chemistry. We validated OliGraph in a blinded study across ten simulated pools (70–9,184 oligonucleotides, 30–300 bp) spanning four risk categories. BLAST screening of individual oligonucleotides failed to identify sequences of concern in most pools: three returned zero hits, and vector noise obscured true positives in the remainder. After OliGraph assembly, contig-level BLAST matched the longest assembled sequences (up to 1,905 bp) to sequences of concern at 97–100% identity. In one pool, assembly collapsed 1,634 individual BLAST results into 10 hits from a single contig, all assigned to the same source organism. PCA mode correctly distinguished assemblable from non-assemblable fragments within the same pool. Two pools with no assemblable structure yielded no contigs. OliGraph processed all pools in under 0.2 seconds, fast enough for real-time order screening and consistent with proposals to bring oligonucleotide orders within the scope of synthesis screening regulation.

Read More

BioRT-Bench: A Multi-Attack Red-Teaming Benchmark for Bio-Misuse Safeguards in Frontier LLMs

Frontier AI laboratories are expected to maintain safeguards against biological misuse, but whether deployed models actually refuse bio-misuse queries under adversarial pressure is largely unmeasured in the public literature. We introduce BioRT-Bench, a benchmark that runs four attack methods (direct request, PAIR, Crescendo, and base64 encoding) against four frontier models (Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT-5.4, DeepSeek V4-flash, Kimi K2.5) across 40 prompts spanning five biosecurity-relevant categories. Responses are scored by a calibrated judge extending StrongREJECT with two bio-specific dimensions: specificity and actionability. We measure Attack Success Rate (ASR), where 0 means the model fully refused and 1 means it provided specific, actionable bio-misuse content. Our results reveal a sharp robustness divide: Chinese frontier models (DeepSeek, Kimi) have under 5% refusal rates even under direct request (ASR 0.88 and 0.79), while Western models (Claude, GPT) maintain substantially stronger safeguards (ASR 0.15 and 0.16). Crescendo is the most effective attack across all models, both in bypassing refusal and in eliciting actionable content. Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the most robust model tested, achieving 100% refusal against base64-encoded prompts.

Read More

PROTEUS (PROTein Evaluation for Unusual Sequences): Structure-Informed Safety Screening for de novo and Evasion-Prone Protein-Coding Sequences

AI protein design tools like RFdiffusion, ProteinMPNN, and Bindcraft make it trivial to produce low-homology sequences that fold into active, potentially hazardous architectures. However, sequence homology-based biosafety screening tools cannot detect proteins that pose functional risk through structurally novel mechanisms with no sequence precedent. We present a tiered computational pipeline that addresses this gap by combining MMseqs2 sequence alignment with structure-based comparison via FoldSeek and DALI against curated toxin databases totaling ~34,000 entries. AlphaFold2-predicted structures are screened for both global fold similarity (FoldSeek) and local active/allosteric site geometry (DALI), capturing convergent functional hazards that sequence screening misses. The pipeline was validated against a panel of toxins, benign proteins, structural mimics, and de novo-designed Munc13 binders, as well as modified ricin variants with residue substitutions. We additionally tested robustness to partial-synthesis evasion, where a bad actor submits multiple shorter coding sequences intended for downstream reassembly into a full toxin-coding gene. We found that while sequence-based screening did not identify any de novo ricin analogues with high certainty, the combined pipeline with FoldSeek and DALI identified all 24 tested de novo ricins as toxic.

Read More

OliGraph: graph-based screening of large oligopools

Existing synthesis screening tools cannot evaluate short oligonucleotide pools, whose overlapping fragments can be reassembled into regulated sequences via polymerase cycling assembly (PCA) yet fall below gene-length detection thresholds. We present OliGraph, an open-source tool that constructs a bi-directed overlap graph from an oligonucleotide pool and extracts contigs for downstream gene-length screening. An optional PCA mode retains only cross-strand overlaps consistent with PCA chemistry. We validated OliGraph in a blinded study across ten simulated pools (70–9,184 oligonucleotides, 30–300 bp) spanning four risk categories. BLAST screening of individual oligonucleotides failed to identify sequences of concern in most pools: three returned zero hits, and vector noise obscured true positives in the remainder. After OliGraph assembly, contig-level BLAST matched the longest assembled sequences (up to 1,905 bp) to sequences of concern at 97–100% identity. In one pool, assembly collapsed 1,634 individual BLAST results into 10 hits from a single contig, all assigned to the same source organism. PCA mode correctly distinguished assemblable from non-assemblable fragments within the same pool. Two pools with no assemblable structure yielded no contigs. OliGraph processed all pools in under 0.2 seconds, fast enough for real-time order screening and consistent with proposals to bring oligonucleotide orders within the scope of synthesis screening regulation.

Read More

BioRT-Bench: A Multi-Attack Red-Teaming Benchmark for Bio-Misuse Safeguards in Frontier LLMs

Frontier AI laboratories are expected to maintain safeguards against biological misuse, but whether deployed models actually refuse bio-misuse queries under adversarial pressure is largely unmeasured in the public literature. We introduce BioRT-Bench, a benchmark that runs four attack methods (direct request, PAIR, Crescendo, and base64 encoding) against four frontier models (Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT-5.4, DeepSeek V4-flash, Kimi K2.5) across 40 prompts spanning five biosecurity-relevant categories. Responses are scored by a calibrated judge extending StrongREJECT with two bio-specific dimensions: specificity and actionability. We measure Attack Success Rate (ASR), where 0 means the model fully refused and 1 means it provided specific, actionable bio-misuse content. Our results reveal a sharp robustness divide: Chinese frontier models (DeepSeek, Kimi) have under 5% refusal rates even under direct request (ASR 0.88 and 0.79), while Western models (Claude, GPT) maintain substantially stronger safeguards (ASR 0.15 and 0.16). Crescendo is the most effective attack across all models, both in bypassing refusal and in eliciting actionable content. Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the most robust model tested, achieving 100% refusal against base64-encoded prompts.

Read More

This work was done during one weekend by research workshop participants and does not represent the work of Apart Research.
This work was done during one weekend by research workshop participants and does not represent the work of Apart Research.