2026 has made clear that AI governance has moved from principle to practice. In the United States, a federal bill is on the table, and the White House is discussing a framework for reviewing frontier models before release. In Europe, the AI Act has entered its implementation phase, with a growing set of obligations now in force. The UN convened the first full session of its Global Dialogue on AI Governance in Geneva this July, the beginning of a recurring collaborative process with the next session set for New York in May 2027. At UNGA this September, AI governance will be a key agenda item for global leaders again.
Independent evaluation, in particular, is moving from the margins to the center of that conversation. Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google DeepMind have each, in their own way, pointed toward third-party evaluation of frontier models. Independent Verification Organizations (IVOs) are explicitly named in the FRONTIER Act, the first federal blueprint for independent AI evaluation, as well as in enacted laws across some states.
At Fathom, we’ve spent a lot of time making the case for IVOs in the United States. But the idea doesn’t stop at the US border, and neither does AI, or the risks and opportunities it brings. Independent evaluation is far more valuable when the systems that provide it are interoperable across countries. The US conversation matters, but it needs to go global.
There is broad consensus that advanced AI needs more oversight than exists today, and jurisdictions are experimenting with different models, mechanisms, and institutions. But what does flexible, interoperable AI governance – including independent evaluation – actually look like, and what determines whether a model can succeed from one country to the next?
To start answering these questions, in early 2026 Fathom commissioned more than 50 interviews with policy leaders, regulators, civil society, and industry figures across six geographies: Australia, Brussels, Canada, France, Singapore, and the United Kingdom. What we found is that readiness follows a pattern consistent enough to assess across jurisdictions.
What defines readiness?
Five variables shape whether a government sees independent evaluation as an opportunity or an obstacle:
Economic growth narrative: how central is AI to the country’s growth story? The more a government treats AI as the keystone of its economic future, the warier it becomes of anything that might chill investment, and the more likely it is to fall into binary “innovation vs. safety” thinking. Counterintuitively, countries with steady growth, strong regulatory muscle memory, and no dominant domestic AI champion are often the most ready to lean into AI governance.
Geopolitical standing and ambition: governance can’t advance in a vacuum. Being too prescriptive risks retaliation or disinvestment from American and Chinese firms, but little or no oversight risks breaking fragile public trust. Countries seeking greater AI sovereignty, those wanting to differentiate themselves from the dominant powers, are often most willing to explore new models, treating governance leadership as strategic leverage rather than constraint.
Governmental self-perception: does a government pride itself on going first, or prefer to watch and follow? Does it have a history of delegating technical validation to independent bodies, or a culture built on issuing rules itself? Where third-party certification and public-private partnership are already familiar, independent evaluation reads as evolution rather than revolution.
The last two factors don’t decide whether progress happens, but they shape how fast and how easily it does:
Political architecture and elections: strong mandates and single-party control smooth the path, while fragmented coalitions, thin majorities, and looming elections add friction. Subnational governments, such as provinces, states, and regions, often serve as starting points where national momentum is stuck.
Relationship with industry: meaningful governance needs industry buy-in, but the line between earning public trust and provoking industry pushback is fine. Where evaluators are seen as helpful third parties serving both sides, adoption is far more likely.
Governance as a common language
The value of this governance framework is its portability: the five factors aren’t unique to the countries we surveyed; rather, they offer a common language for assessing readiness anywhere. As governments craft distinct AI governance strategies, understanding why they choose becomes as important as understanding what they choose. Readiness turns out to hinge less on a country’s technical capacity and more on its political conditions: economic narrative, geopolitical ambition, institutional culture, political structure, and industry relationships together determine whether a government perceives independent evaluation as opportunity or overreach.
Turning the framework into a roadmap
Where AI sits at the center of the growth story, evaluation can be framed as a way to build the trust that sustains innovation rather than a barrier to it. Where a government wants a distinctive role on the world stage, it becomes a form of strategic leverage. Where third-party certification and public-private partnership are already familiar, it can be introduced as an extension of assurance functions the country already runs, not a new layer of oversight. And where national action is slow, subnational governments can offer lower-risk ground to test what works.
In the coming weeks, Fathom will publish a report offering some practical ways leaders in different countries can use these five factors to evaluate their readiness to implement AI governance frameworks, including independent verification systems.
The window to shape global AI governance is open. Independent evaluation is already part of the conversation; the real question is where it takes root first. That won’t happen everywhere at once – and it doesn’t need to. It starts with recognizing which governments are ready to move, and building roadmaps suited to each, so the AI transition ahead is one shaped by more than just a handful of countries.