Two Failure Modes Require Architectural Change: A Formal Harmonization Gap Analysis of the EU AI Act, Vietnam's AI Law, and the ASEAN AI Governance Guide
Ngô Thái Bảo
There is a common assumption in tech policy that the EU sets the global baseline for AI regulation, with other regions simply converging toward it. However, a formal analysis of Vietnam's new AI Law (Law No. 134/2025/QH15)—Southeast Asia's first binding national AI legislation, taking effect on March 1, 2026—shows this isn't always true. In fact, for minimal-risk AI systems, Vietnam enforces a universal human-control principle where the EU AI Act remains completely silent, making Vietnam the stricter regime in terms of formal legal force.
4/3/4
Criteria 1 — Impact Potential & Innovation: 4
Criteria 2 — Execution Quality: 3
Criteria 3 — Presentation & Clarity: 4
Very innovative , good presentation quality, i understand there is little AI footprint , but that is for abstarct and wording part, thought process and ideas are original and technically solid given the short duration, limitations acknowledged, work builds toward clear conclusions.
very pleased with the comparative approach and imaginative spirit in creating a framework to evaluate it. good job, standout. There is room for growth in the presentation and clarity side, consider putting yourself more in the headpieces of policymakers who will know very little of this and still need to understand the relevance and the steps you took.
This is a genuinely rigorous piece of work! The sensitivity analysis that tested your own findings against alternative encodings is a particular strength. An independent review from a legal expert on how the statutes (the seven obligation-pair encodings) were translated into HSDL would be a good next step to further boost the validity of the work, since every quantitative result depends on those encodings. Overall, very well written and methodologically sound.
Solid, reproducible work. Verification runs cleanly and strengthens the paper through self-falsification tests and documented corrections.
To improve:
1. Add an adversarial encoding pass. The main claims rely on your own web-based legal encodings, so the theorems prove results about the model, not directly about the statutes. A second annotator should independently encode a few obligation pairs, and you should report which conclusions survive alternative readings.
2. Make the companion proofs public.
Cite this work
@misc {
title={
(HckPrj) Two Failure Modes Require Architectural Change: A Formal Harmonization Gap Analysis of the EU AI Act, Vietnam's AI Law, and the ASEAN AI Governance Guide
},
author={
Ngô Thái Bảo
},
date={
},
organization={Apart Research},
note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},
howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}
}


