Skip to content
Sprint projectJun 22, 2026Cape Town, and India

DisElect-Africa

Joshua Padoa, Karan Signh, Atharva, Ivan · Team Constitutional Crisis Management

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

Do LLMs Refuse Election Disinformation Equally Across African and Western Contexts — and can a Constitution Fix It?

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. The paper makes a valuable contribution by extending election disinformation benchmarking to African electoral contexts through a controlled experimental design, addressing an important gap in AI safety evaluation. This methodology is a particular strength, and the Constitutional AI intervention adds practical value by demonstrating a mitigation strategy. The main opportunity for improvement is scope: the evaluation currently covers a limited set of countries, models, and prompts, which means the findings are best understood as an initial benchmark rather than a definitive assessment. Further validation of the judging pipeline and deeper analysis of trade-offs such as over-refusal would strengthen confidence in the conclusions and support broader application of the framework.

  2. In relation to Criteria 1, it was not immediately clear to me how the findings could actually be used or deployed in a real world context to limit disinformation during elections. Generally, the project articulated quite clearly the problem, the test / results, and the limitations which were all clear to follow from a non-technical perspective. Something I did not quite understand was how Constitutional AI actually fixed the problem (I'd liked to have understood how Constitutional AI worked in a bit more detail).

  3. The paper's most valuable contribution is the unexpected reframe, discovering that the locale gap hypothesis is superseded by a universal baseline failure and this is communicated clearly and is immediately actionable for low-resource African civic-tech practitioners. The most significant gap is the omission of the Constitutional AI system prompt text from the paper entirely, since the mitigation result is the second major finding and not reproducing it makes independent replication impossible

  4. ## Strengths

    The risk this work identifies is real and timely, which makes the contribution highly relevant. Election disinformation is a live threat to African democratic processes, and the finding that open-weight models will generate it on demand at a near-total rate is exactly the kind of deployment-side concern the field needs to surface now rather than later.

    The methodology is clever. Adapting an existing, published election-disinformation eval into a locale-controlled design is an efficient way to get to a rigorous result in a weekend, and holding the prompt language constant so that only the locale varies is the right move to isolate the effect being studied. The honest reframing of the result is also a strength. The team predicted a locale gap and instead found that compliance is near-ceiling everywhere, then drew the more important conclusion: the guardrails are essentially absent, not unevenly applied.

    ## Weaknesses

    The main weakness is the ceiling effect. Because compliance sits so close to 100% across every arm, there is little headroom to disentangle a locale effect from the overall absence of guardrails, and the locale comparison is underpowered as a result. This is an honest finding rather than a flaw in the design, but it does limit what the current experiment can conclude about regional differences specifically. The scope is also narrow on the regional axis, covering two anglophone African countries, which constrains claims about African contexts more broadly.

    ## Recommendations for the authors

    The clear next step is to **scale this work up**. First, **extend the evaluation to frontier models**. Unlike the open-weight models tested here, frontier systems have meaningful guardrails, so their compliance should fall away from the ceiling and finally create the headroom needed to detect whether locale matters. Second, **add more African country variations** so that genuine regional differences can be isolated. If both are done, this becomes a powerful and decision-relevant resource that could guide real democratic institutions in Africa as they defend against disinformation. On presentation, the paper is clear and easy to follow, and expanding some of the briefer bulleted sections into fuller prose would strengthen the structure and help it read as a complete paper.

    Read full reviewShow less

Cite this project

@misc{padoa2026diselectafrica,
  title = {{DisElect-Africa}},
  author = {Joshua Padoa and Karan Signh and Atharva and Ivan},
  year = {2026},
  month = jun,
  note = {Submitted to Global South AI Safety Hackathon, an Apart Research Sprint},
  howpublished = {\url{https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/diselectafrica-y8ao}},
  url = {https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/diselectafrica-y8ao}
}

Build something like this at the next Sprint

AI Collusion Research Sprint · Oct 23 - 25, 2026