Where the region stands
Select a jurisdiction from the spread or country scorecard for its complete six-part governance assessment. Use the other views to examine actual public evidence of activity and capability.
AI capability deserves its own measurement.
Compare digital-government foundations, an external government AI-readiness benchmark, and operational AI evidence. An original Felaris operational maturity score will be published when the evidence is sufficient for a defensible assessment. The source-backed findings can be published independently.
Readiness spread
0–100, 60/40 formulaEuropean Union and Montserrat remain unranked where a single comparable EGDI input is unavailable.
Regional overview
Governance readiness and operational AI evidence are tracked on separate measures.
Six research dimensions
Evidence, with gaps visible
Counts describe records in this review, not a country's maturity or comparative performance.
AI & Digital Maturity
Digital-government foundations are measured with UN EGDI. Government AI readiness is shown as a published Oxford Insights reference. Felaris separately tracks source-backed AI activity across six research areas. Evidence coverage is shown without presenting it as a maturity score.
AI operational maturity
Country rating: not issued. Source-backed profiles are available. The table reports where country-specific research records have been collected across six separate areas. Evidence coverage is not a maturity rating and does not measure performance. A numerical Felaris maturity score will require a consistent assessment of the 20 research tests, with limitations and review status disclosed.
Digital-government maturity
Country score available. UN E-Government Development Index (2024) × 100. It measures digital public-service foundations and is not a count of AI deployments or enterprise AI use.
Country benchmark table
Rank recalculates within your selected view and sort. Select any jurisdiction for its individual governance sources and AI evidence.
| Rank in view | Jurisdiction | Government AI readiness /100 Oxford 2025 score / rank | Digital-government maturity /100 UN EGDI 2024 | Documented AI activity Evidence coverage · 6 areas | Inspect |
|---|
CARICOM digital maturity
UN EGDI 2024 · normalized /100Montserrat has no comparable EGDI value in the existing baseline. The Dominican Republic is outside this CARICOM comparison.
Source: UN E-Government Survey 2024 ↗
Felaris operational AI maturity framework
A proposed 100-point model, separate from the source coverage shown above. National numeric scores require comparable indicator assessment. Current findings are published as attributed research with their limitations.
Observed activity and evidence
Source-backed findings illustrate where AI use, programmes and governance activity have been documented. They do not establish an AI maturity score.
Country readiness scorecard
All published composite scores and six-criterion governance totals retained. Select a row for its criterion-by-criterion explanations, evidence date and direct source links. Select the same row again, use Close × or press Escape to dismiss the panel.
| Rank in view | Jurisdiction | Readiness /100 | Governance /12 | UN EGDI 2024 | Oxford AI | Detail |
|---|
AI deployment & realised value
Record where AI has been observed operating, whether use extends past pilots, and whether outcomes have a published baseline, methodology, follow-up period and identifiable owner.
Research tests
Skills & operational capacity
Separate announced training from delivered courses and measured skills. Distinguish connectivity and digital-government maturity from data infrastructure, national AI compute and research capacity.
What must be measured before a rating is published
Budgeted places → enrolments → verified completions → assessed competence.
Procured systems → deployed services → active users → service reliability and cost.
Connectivity and EGDI context → usable data and identity → AI compute availability and affordability.
Country evidence coverage
A filled cell indicates a direct country record in the present register. It does not indicate a positive maturity score. Regional-only records do not imply country coverage.
Governance, operating controls & assurance
The six existing legal-readiness criteria remain the official scored baseline. New operational tests examine implementation, institutional oversight, AI system registers, access controls, monitoring and assurance without extrapolating from legislation.
Governance developments
Assurance evidence requirements
Country-level governance controls
Select a jurisdiction to inspect six independently linked source entries from the Felaris readiness baseline. Open a country to see its source-backed evidence coverage and governance criteria. No numerical operational AI maturity score is claimed.
Governance maturity
Policy status, designated owner, legal commencement, supervisory capacity, authority and enforcement evidence.
Operational assurance
Register of actual AI systems, control ownership, training and testing records, human review, exception management, independent audit and incident evidence.
Methodology, sources & review
Readiness methodology and the expanded evidence framework are documented separately. Research measures remain descriptive until appropriate quality thresholds, comparable datasets and independent review justify a new score.
Official readiness calculation
Six legal and institutional measures each use 0–2 points, giving a governance score out of 12. The normalized governance score contributes 60%; the UN E-Government Development Index contributes 40%.
Oxford Government AI Readiness and Network Readiness Index remain contextual. Missing EGDI means no composite. Neither comparator nor new research evidence silently alters existing scores.
Weighting sensitivity
Same baseline inputs, alternate governance/EGDI weights. Official rankings remain the 60/40 values.
| Market | 50/50 | Official 60/40 | 70/30 |
|---|
At 50/50, three adjacent ranking pairs reverse. At 70/30 the published order remains unchanged.
Full expanded research framework | 20 measures
These are research and evidence tests, not currently published Felaris country maturity scores. Each test requires a source, observation date, verification status and a documented reviewer assessment.
Evidence register
Review, correction & publication process
Evidence intake
Record affected country, indicator, precise finding, dated source, source type and correction request.
First review
Check legal commencement, measurement population, actual implementation, conflicts and evidence age.
Second review
Independent reviewer repeats source and arithmetic checks. Record decisions and any unresolved disagreements.
Publish & track
Update version, changed indicators, sources, change log, preview checks and production verification.
Change log
11 Oct 2026: Existing reviewed index, six governance criteria and composite scores.
18 Oct 2026: Expanded research views, country evidence disclosures, 20-measure framework, source register and assurance control requirements drafted. No readiness-score changes.
01 Nov 2026 (planned): Second review, source corrections, production decision and final dated release.
Interpretation and limitations
Public-sector activity is more visible than private-sector deployment. Zero disclosed evidence means no record confirmed in this review, not proof of no activity. Proposals are not completed programmes; self-reported results are not independently audited ROI. Connectivity measures and EGDI are incomplete proxies for national AI infrastructure. National legal standards do not automatically establish organisational operating controls.