REIA — Evaluador de Riesgo de Cumplimiento Legal en IA para Latinoamérica
Richard Junior Montaño Flores, Iver Ceron Condori , Gonzalo Veizaga Veizaga Justiniano , Yeisa Isabel Torrico Romero
REIA evalúa el riesgo de cumplimiento legal de un proyecto de IA en Latinoamérica. El usuario elige un país y sube la descripción de su proyecto (PDF, DOCX o texto); el sistema busca las normas vigentes de ese país —cada una con enlace a su fuente oficial—, analiza el proyecto contra ellas y devuelve: porcentaje de riesgo, semáforo, índice global de cumplimiento, las leyes que podría infringir, recomendaciones y si el despliegue queda bloqueado. La interfaz es multilingüe (castellano, quechua, aymara, guaraní, plautdietsch). Como principio de AI Safety, nunca inventa leyes: solo cita normas verificadas por búsqueda web (con URL) o por su catálogo curado.
This project addresses an important problem: organizations in Latin America are adopting AI systems faster than they can obtain reliable, affordable legal-compliance review. A tool that provides fast first-pass triage, cites legal sources, distinguishes jurisdictions, and makes compliance outputs reproducible could be useful for regulators, civil society, startups, and public-sector teams. The inclusion of quechua, aymara, guaraní, and plautdietsch is a valuable access-oriented feature and is the project’s most distinctive contribution.
The proposed architecture is sensible at a high level. Separating legal-source retrieval from legal analysis, restricting the model to cited sources, calculating the global score deterministically in code, and caching results by content hash are all good design choices. These choices respond to real risks in automated legal tools: hallucinated laws, unstable outputs, opaque scoring, and lack of reproducibility.
The main limitation is that the project is still mostly a design proposal rather than a demonstrated system. The Results section explicitly says that the final numbers must be confirmed by running the APIs and that the table represents the design of the demonstration.
A second limitation is legal reliability. The claim that the system cannot invent laws is too strong. Restricting the model to search-returned URLs reduces hallucination risk, but it does not eliminate legal error. The paper acknowledges some of this in the limitations, but the abstract and conclusion should be more cautious. A third limitation is that the submission appears unfinished.
The most important next step is validation. The authors could run the system on a set of test cases across multiple jurisdictions, compare its outputs with expert legal review.
Overall, this is a useful and socially valuable idea with a reasonable architecture, but the current version is preliminary.
Cite this work
@misc {
title={
(HckPrj) REIA — Evaluador de Riesgo de Cumplimiento Legal en IA para Latinoamérica
},
author={
Richard Junior Montaño Flores, Iver Ceron Condori , Gonzalo Veizaga Veizaga Justiniano , Yeisa Isabel Torrico Romero
},
date={
},
organization={Apart Research},
note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},
howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}
}


