Inference Sovereignty as the Missing Layer of AI Governance
Cao Nha Phuong
In the case of sovereignty in AI computing within the Global South, sovereignty in AI computing has shifted from developing intelligence to giving reliable access to intelligence. For this reason, we have come up with the concept of Inference Dependence Score which is a five-dimensional framework of evaluation that we have used to evaluate Vietnam, Indonesia, and Singapore; the findings suggest that while Singapore has better governance scores because of being voluntary, these scores are relatively lower compared to those of Vietnam, which are mandatory through law.
The IDS seems novel contribution, but the methods need improvement and rigor, eg based on what theories of national sovereignty?
The author list many sources of data, but it's not very clear how each country got a specific score for each dimension.
the paper does not fully justify why this requires national infrastructure rather than enterprise or workflow-level resilience. Many of the risks discussed, such as outages, provider changes, model deprecation, hallucination spikes, and failover are normally handled through ordinary deployment practices. The paper would be stronger if it clearly separated vendor-risk management from true sovereignty risk, gave stronger evidence for the country scores, and explained when a national AI gateway is actually better than sector-level standards or organization-level fallback planning.
Cite this work
@misc {
title={
(HckPrj) Inference Sovereignty as the Missing Layer of AI Governance
},
author={
Cao Nha Phuong
},
date={
},
organization={Apart Research},
note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},
howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}
}


