Skip to content
Apart Research
Apart Research
Contact us
Sprint projectJun 22, 2026Dhaka

A Contextual Audit of Bangladesh's National AI Policy Draft 2026–2030

Tasmiah Tahsin Mayeesha, Farzana Islam · Team AI4Bangladesh

Submitted to Global South AI Safety Hackathon. Sprint projects are early-stage work by participants, not Apart Research publications.

Read the report

Report: A Contextual Audit of Bangladesh's National AI Policy Draft 2026–2030

Open in a new tab (opens in new tab)
Share

This audit of Bangladesh's National AI Policy 2026–2030 reveals that while it aligns well with international benchmarks, it strips away key local independence mechanisms and neglects critical Global South priorities like AI literacy, independent oversight, and minority language inclusion.

Reviews

Judging this Sprint?

Review this project

Your public critique appears on this page without your name. Your private critique is not published; only the Apart team reads it. If you agree below, we share your review with grantmaking.ai (opens in new tab) and the Transformative AI Fund so strong projects can be funded.

Not shown on this page.

Shown on this page, without your name.

Only the Apart team reads this, and funders if you agree below.

Share my name publicly on grantmaking.ai *
Share my private critique with funders *

How much would this matter for AI safety if it worked? How innovative is it? For scores of 4-5: is this actually new to the field, or replicating recent work?

Scoring guide
  1. 1Negligible. No clear problem addressed, or no meaningful novelty.
  2. 2Limited. Addresses a real problem but with a generic or well-trodden approach. Incremental at best.
  3. 3Moderate. Clear problem with a reasonable approach; some novelty in framing or method beyond routine application of existing tools.
  4. 4Significant. Important problem with an original approach, or identifies a neglected problem area. A valuable contribution others could build on.
  5. 5Exceptional. Tackles a critical AI safety problem with a genuinely novel approach, or opens a new research direction. Clear theory of change. You'd be excited to share this with researchers in the area.

How sound are methodology, implementation, and findings?

Scoring guide
  1. 1Seriously flawed. Methodology broken, results uninterpretable, or implementation doesn't work.
  2. 2Weak. Approach has significant gaps: missing validation, flawed experimental design, or incomplete implementation.
  3. 3Competent. Technically solid given the short duration. Methodology makes sense, results are interpretable, limitations acknowledged, work builds toward clear conclusions.
  4. 4Strong. Thorough methodology with convincing validation. Results clearly support conclusions. Immediately useful for future work.
  5. 5Exceptional. Ambitious scope executed rigorously. Surprising findings, novel methods, or unusually robust validation.

How clearly are work, findings, and impact potential communicated?

Scoring guide
  1. 1Incomprehensible. Cannot determine what the project is actually claiming or doing.
  2. 2Hard to follow. Key information buried, missing, or diluted by excessive length. Significant effort to extract main points.
  3. 3Clear enough. Can understand the problem, approach, and results without undue effort. Core content clearly present: problem, method, findings, limitations.
  4. 4Well presented. Easy to follow, well-structured, appropriate level of detail. Target audience would get it quickly.
  5. 5Exceptionally clear. A pleasure to read. Complex ideas made accessible. Could serve as a model for how to present this type of work.

  1. 4/4/5

    Criteria 1 - Impact Potential & Innovation: 4

    Criteria 2 - Execution Quality: 4

    Criteria 3 — Presentation & Clarity: 5

    The most polished writing of the set. Cleanly structured, the aligned/partial/absent framing makes the results table immediately legible, and the prose is precise without overselling

    The work is grounded in real primary research, 32 stakeholder interviews from the authors' own prior ICTD 2024 paper, rather than invented composites or single-coder encodings, so the seven principles have an empirical provenance that the analysis can stand on.

  2. well organized and readable. solid, well-conceived audit with reusable methodology! Since the approach more methodological & diagnostic than innovative, it limits its scope, but its own limitations are also addressed honestly. Consider a wider scope for your next project.

  3. This a an excellent, well grounded project! Auditing the policy against your own stakeholder research is a smart move. The children's data tension was also a really good observation!

Cite this project

@misc{mayeesha2026contextual,
  title = {{A Contextual Audit of Bangladesh's National AI Policy Draft 2026–2030}},
  author = {Tasmiah Tahsin Mayeesha and Farzana Islam},
  year = {2026},
  month = jun,
  note = {Submitted to Global South AI Safety Hackathon, an Apart Research Sprint},
  howpublished = {\url{https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/a-contextual-audit-of-bangladeshs-national-ai-policy-draft-20262030-zr68}},
  url = {https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/a-contextual-audit-of-bangladeshs-national-ai-policy-draft-20262030-zr68}
}

More from Global South AI Safety Hackathon

All 216 entriesBrowse all projects

Build something like this at the next Sprint

AI Collusion Research Sprint · Oct 23 - 25, 2026