Effectiveness
Test
Compare the design under the same scenarios with four comparators: an international standards regime in the style of the Basel Committee, strengthened national regulation, a treaty institution, and voluntary coordination among developers.
Failure criterion
A design fails when a less ambitious comparator closes the same gap, when it offers no credible risk-reduction mechanism, when it relies on compliance precisely where the scenario assumes defection, or when it gains effectiveness by sacrificing the preceding safeguards.
Questions testing this condition
- What activates jurisdiction?
- How should disputed technical evidence become a decision?
- Who may change the jurisdictional thresholds?
- How should embodiment and deployment scale affect obligations?
- How should military autonomy fit within the mandate?
- Who resolves a dispute when powerful participants disagree?
- How would this institution relate to existing states?
- Does drafting an AI model's constitution substitute for this institution's jurisdiction?
- Can the implementers prevent capture, including their own collusion?
- What rights would affected parties retain?
- What limits would apply during an emergency?
- How do withdrawal and functional defection work?
- How can decisions reach actors who never joined?
- Can infrastructure restrictions avoid cartel power?
- Who determines equivalence?
- What evidence would count against creating the institution?