Imagine you're a building inspector and every city in the country uses a different inspection form. Some forms ask about fire exits, some don't. Some ask about plumbing, some leave it blank. Now imagine you're trying to figure out which buildings are safe by comparing forms across cities. That's the state of public-sector AI registers today — and this paper is the first systematic attempt to line all the forms up side by side and see what's actually being recorded. The committed claim: government AI registers, despite their proliferation across 72 countries, have converged on describing what AI systems do but systematically omit the governance-critical fields — appeals processes, risk assessments, legal bases, and independent evaluations. The registers are performing visibility without delivering accountability. Das and Guha harmonized 8,368 records across 23 fields from country-specific and transnational inventories and found that broad schemas often had substantial missingness, schema similarity showed no significant patterned convergence, and multiple sources covering the same jurisdictions overlapped only selectively. On the ladder: there is no strong quantitative baseline to beat here because this is the first cross-national comparison at this scale. Prior work has examined individual registers (the EU AI Act's requirements, the US federal AI inventory, the Netherlands' Algoritmeregister) or compared a handful in narrative form. This paper's contribution is methodological — harmonizing 23 fields across heterogeneous schemas and measuring missingness and overlap quantitatively rather than impressionistically. It doesn't claim to beat a predecessor; it claims to be the first to do the measurement at all. Architecturally, this is empirical comparative policy analysis, not machine learning. The method family is schema harmonization plus descriptive statistics: the authors map each register's fields onto a common 23-field schema, compute completeness rates per field, calculate inter-register schema similarity (finding no significant convergence pattern), and measure jurisdictional overlap between sources covering the same countries. The compute requirement is negligible — this is a data-wrangling and classification exercise, not a modeling one. The hard work is in the harmonization decisions, which are judgment calls about field equivalence across different administrative traditions. Integrity is mixed. The dataset is large (8,368 records, 72 countries), but the validation is inherently self-referential: the authors define the harmonization schema and then measure against it. There's no independent coding team or inter-rater reliability check mentioned in the abstract. The finding that "schema similarity showed no significant patterned convergence" is the kind of null result that's hard to p-hack in one direction but also hard to verify without seeing the similarity metric and the threshold for significance. The synthesis of a "layered visibility framework" is interpretive, not empirical — it's a conceptual contribution layered on top of the quantitative findings. The milestone question is structural, not numerical. The paper implicitly argues that what's needed is not more registers but better-designed ones — with mandatory fields for risk, appeals, legal basis, and external evaluation. The concrete next milestone would be: a single jurisdiction adopting the full layered framework (all 23 fields with near-complete fill rates) and demonstrating that cross-register interoperability is achievable. We're probably 3-5 years from any jurisdiction doing this systematically, given the pace of AI governance implementation. The obvious experiment not run: actually auditing whether filled-in fields contain accurate information versus performative compliance. Completeness ≠ quality. A register that lists "low risk" for every system is worse than one that leaves the field blank. The authors almost certainly know this, but measuring accuracy would require domain-expert evaluation of thousands of records — a massive undertaking they likely didn't have the budget for. This is option (a): ran out of resources, not option (b) or (c).
