Risk-Gov-AI
Elaine Fabiola Soares
This work presents RiskGovAI, a platform developed during the Global South AI Safety Hackathon to support Artificial Intelligence governance and the consultation of data protection legislation in Latin America. The solution aims to automate regulatory research, reduce interpretation errors, and facilitate access to normative information.
The architecture utilizes the Gemma 3 4B language model integrated with the Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) technique, allowing for contextualized queries based on official documents. For information storage and retrieval, ChromaDB was employed as a vector database responsible for indexing and retrieving relevant excerpts from the analyzed regulations.
The knowledge base brings together Brazil's General Data Protection Law (LGPD), Chile's Law 21.719, Colombia's Law 1581, and Mexico's Federal Law on the Protection of Personal Data Held by Private Parties (LFPDPPP). Beyond handling queries, the platform allows comparison of requirements across different jurisdictions, identifying regulatory similarities and differences.
To increase response reliability and reduce hallucinations, Guardrails mechanisms were implemented, ensuring greater alignment with the source materials used. The results demonstrate that the combination of LLMs, RAG, ChromaDB, and Guardrails can expand access to regulatory knowledge and support responsible AI governance practices, contributing to safety and reliability goals.
The project's main weakness is that its theory of change is unclear. The causal chain it proposes assumes that lowering the cost of regulatory research would raise compliance and reduce rights violations. That chain rests on a bottleneck the work takes for granted and never demonstrates, since it assumes the cost of researching the law is what holds compliance back. As far as I can tell, non-compliance in the region responds more to weak incentives and weak enforcement than to ignorance of the law, and if that is the real constraint, the tool does not move the outcome. The intended beneficiary is also vague. Developers, small organizations, public institutions and researchers have different needs, and the work never defines who changes which concrete decision thanks to the platform. It also leaves open a risk the project itself hints at, because a legally wrong answer presented with an article-level citation can create false confidence and worsen the very decision it aims to improve.
The AI safety framing is likewise weak. The project works as a data protection compliance tool, and that agenda overlaps with AI safety without being the same one. There is also overclaiming when the work states that the system eliminates hallucinations, since at best it only reduces them, and the limitations section concedes this by admitting that reliability would fall if the RAG retrieves incorrect passages. Finally, the evidence shows internal inconsistencies, because some results cite sources or frameworks that, according to the document itself, are not part of the indexed base.
very real problem, truly good presentation, and competent execution given the timeframe. a limitation is that it doesn't open a new research direction. Limitations section is honest, overall very good work.
Put the final product link at the top! This was the main deliverable, so it should be clear and center.
Because this is not a 'technical discovery' but more of a 'user product', I wish the write-up had centered on questions like:
- Who could benefit from using this?
- What are the main requirements/desiderata user preferences impose on the product?
- How did we use those to inform the main technical choices
For example, why go with Gemma 4? is it because it can be easily locally hosted? why is that important
Still, I liked this submission quite a bit. Cheers!
Cite this work
@misc {
title={
(HckPrj) Risk-Gov-AI
},
author={
Elaine Fabiola Soares
},
date={
},
organization={Apart Research},
note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},
howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}
}


