The Global Risks Forum (GRF)
GRF · AI and Digital Governance
Situational awarenessEvents, outlooks and readiness for those who decide
Governments shape AI and digital systems through what they buy and the standards they reference. Procurement sets requirements for transparency, security, data rights and exit; standards bodies write the specifications that regulators presume compliant. This page sets out how procurement and standards govern technology, where they fail, the records that show them, and who decides.
Technology procurement and standards · Algorithm register · Quarter 2
| Benefit fraud flagging | Social agency | High | Missing | Partial |
| Permit triage | Planning | Limited | Done | Yes |
| School placement | Education | High | Done | Yes |
| Chat assistant | Tax office | Minimal | Done | n/a |
Fig.Public algorithm register. Design wireframe with placeholder names and illustrative values, not a record or a live system.
Public acquisition and assurances. The dossier below sets out how the risk develops, what is measured, where the data come from, how it is modelled and who decides.
Proprietary formats, bundled services and exit costs bind public bodies to one supplier. Requirements for portability, open standards and exit plans keep future choices open.
Whether a public body can audit a system, see its documentation or publish its use depends on contract terms. Trade secret claims can block oversight unless contracts address them.
Harmonised standards give a presumption of conformity with law. Who sits on standards committees, and how open their work is, shapes the substance of regulation.
Procurement teams often lack technical expertise to specify, evaluate and manage AI contracts. Shared frameworks and central expertise reduce the gap.
The instruments, mandates, actors and accountability arrangements a policymaker, diplomat or development agency works with, citing the agreements that set them. Structures follow the frameworks named. Any state or progress drawn is illustrative, not a record.
The kinds of instrument available on technology procurement and standards, by level of government and cooperation.
| Instrument type | Local | National | Regional | Global |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regulatory | Zoning, building codes | Laws, standards, licensing | Harmonised rules | Conventions and treaties |
| Economic | Local levies, grants | Budget lines, taxes, insurance schemes | Risk pools, regional funds | Financing mechanisms |
| Information | Local warnings | Disclosure, early warning, statistics | Data sharing arrangements | Global monitoring and reporting |
| Institutional | Local committees | Lead agencies, coordination councils | Regional bodies and secretariats | Multilateral mandates |
| Cooperative | Community agreements | Partnership compacts | Memoranda and joint programmes | Agreements and joint commitments |
Each indicator carries its unit, its cadence, the kind of source behind it and the evidence label a value would carry. No values are shown: a programme supplies them under its own authority.
| Indicator | Unit | Cadence | Source type | Label |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AI procurement guidance in force | yes or no | on change | Government publications | Published statistics |
| Public technology contracts with exit and portability clauses | share of reviewed contracts | periodic | Audit reviews | ESTIMATED |
| Contracts published under open contracting | share of contracts | annual | Open contracting data | OBSERVED |
| Harmonised AI standards published | count | on change | Standards body records | Published statistics |
| Public sector participation in standards committees | count of delegates | annual | Standards body records | REPORTED |
| Spend with largest technology suppliers | share of technology spend | annual | Procurement data | REPORTED |
The topic as a computational graph: named sources feed the methods, an evidence review gates the outputs, and the decisions stay with the authorities that hold them.
Fig. 02Nodes carry their type, two metric rows and a state; connectors show what feeds what; dashed frames name the owners; the timeline is the cadence. Design of the pipeline, not a record of a run.
Named public datasets and institutional records, each with its licence class. Sources by agreement are used only under their terms and never republished.
| Source | What it gives | Licence class |
|---|---|---|
| Open Contracting Data Standard publications | Public contracting data from adopting governments | Licence per publisher |
| CEN-CENELEC JTC 21 work programme | European AI standards in development | Free to read, CEN-CENELEC terms |
| ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 42 published standards list | International AI standards | Catalogue free; standards sold under ISO terms |
| EU model contractual clauses for the public procurement of AI | Draft contract terms buyers can attach to AI purchases | European Commission reuse policy |
| National audit office reviews of technology programmes | Findings on procurement and delivery | Public records, terms per office |
AI and Digital Governance prepares evidence. The decisions below are taken by the authorities named, under their own rules, and never by the platform.
| Who decides | The question | Evidence this page serves |
|---|---|---|
| Procurement authorities | Which requirements to include in technology contracts | Comparative guidance and audit findings |
| Standards bodies and committees | What a standard specifies and who takes part | Work programmes and participation records |
| Regulators | Which standards to reference for conformity | Standards content and implementation evidence |
| Audit offices | Whether technology contracts delivered value | Contract and delivery records |
Decisions made at the point of purchase are hard to reverse. A contract signed without the right to audit, or without data portability, can constrain oversight and choice for the life of the system. Why now: public buyers are becoming the main enforcers of AI and digital safeguards through contract terms, and standards bodies are drafting the technical references that rules point to. The platform is designed to convene procurement authorities on what to require and how to check it; GRF procures nothing itself.
Vague requirements produce systems that meet the contract but not the need.
Proprietary formats and integrations make changing provider costly, weakening bargaining power.
Without testing rights and documentation, buyers rely on vendors' claims.
Standard terms for transparency, audit, data and liability. Limits: vendors may resist, and clauses need enforcement.
Assessing whether AI is appropriate before buying. Limits: depends on in-house expertise.
Technical standards for AI management, security and quality, grounded in AI evaluation and assurance engineering. Limits: conformity shows process, not outcome.
Reducing lock-in through common formats and interfaces. Limits: not always available for new technologies.
Nexus Reports is the Consortium's quarterly publication. What you know about this subject can become evidence, a case or a correction in the next edition, credited to you and published under CC BY 4.0 where it is your own work.
Never send personal data, sensitive infrastructure detail or anything you have no right to share. A contribution is reviewed before use; sending it confers no authorship or editorial rights, and sponsorship never buys a finding.
The current service level is R0: information and enquiries. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.
Maps, data and figures on this site are shown for context and general information. They are not advice, forecasts or warnings; the limits of the information are set out in the Disclaimers and Data Notices.