What makes a country ready to govern AI?

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.