A criação de uma coalização de políticas públicas baseadas em evidências no Brasil: auxiliando na construção de um alicerce político para avançar em uma agenda…

The project presents a well-structured strategy for strengthening institutional capacity and building consensus around AI governance. Its political and organizational approach provides an important perspective for the region. To increase its direct contribution to AI Safety, the initiative should be complemented with a dedicated technical workstream focused on auditing, risk evaluation, and system oversight, creating a stronger connection between institutional strategy and concrete risk mitigation mechanisms.

The article does a good job of defending the point "a coalition between EA Brasil and ABPBE would be potentially valuable", but the high-level approach to the question makes it hard to answer things like:

- How would this work in practice? Should specific departments be created? Should just a few EAs apply to ABPBE?

- What's the scope of the initial collaboration? How could we test the willingness of different parties to engage together?

Overall, I feel it's a good idea on what feels like a relatively unexplored domain, though (as flagged by the authors) a bunch more work needs to be done before it can be put into action

The main weakness of the work is its theory of change. AI safety appears as a distant, future beneficiary rather than the object of the proposal, and no model is offered for why a generic evidence-based policy coalition would translate into concrete advances in AI safety or governance. The underlying assumption, that it is worth first building general institutional capacity because it would later help the AI agenda, is very large and remains undemonstrated, with the aggravating factor that the coalition spreads across many areas, which makes it much harder to measure the proposal's efficacy.

A second limitation is that the manuscript provides almost no evidence that the mechanism works. It also fails to answer its strongest objection, since the authors cite that 80,000 Hours deprioritized improving institutional decision-making for its execution difficulty and respond only by invoking "fit" without demonstrating it. Finally, the related-work section relies almost entirely on Effective Altruism sources and would benefit from broadening the literature to include the existing advances in evidence-based public policy in Brazil, which the text neither maps nor distinguishes itself from.