Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces RAIL, an automatic classifier that assesses the maturity of artificial intelligence technologies by unifying existing readiness frameworks into a comprehensive nine-level scale called AIRL. By leveraging a panel of independent large language models, RAIL operationalizes this scale to deliver consistent readiness assessments based solely on natural language descriptions of AI projects. The results demonstrate that RAIL effectively avoids overestimation issues commonly associated with monolithic classifiers, providing a robust tool for investment and policy decisions in AI.
RAIL can classify AI maturity levels with unprecedented accuracy, using a panel of independent LLMs to eliminate biases found in traditional assessments.
Assessing the maturity of artificial intelligence technologies is essential for investment decisions, project management, and policy monitoring, yet the available readiness frameworks are heterogeneous and difficult to apply automatically: the adaptation of Technology Readiness Levels to AI lacks AI-specific gating criteria, the Machine Learning Technology Readiness Levels presuppose access to internal process artifacts, and AI/data readiness dimension models employ scales that resist direct comparison. This paper makes two contributions. First, we unify these three frameworks into the Unified AI Readiness Level (AIRL), a nine-level ordinal scale built on an environmental evidence ladder and complemented by dimensional caps (covering specification, data existence, data quality, data legality, expert knowledge, and algorithmic maturity) together with a generality-anchoring rule and explicit assignment disciplines, so that a readiness level becomes decidable from a natural-language description of the work alone. Second, we propose RAIL (Readiness Assessment via Independent LLM-experts), a panel-of-experts classifier that operationalizes the scale: one evidence agent and six independent dimension agents, each a large language model with a narrowly scoped mandate, deliver verdicts that a deterministic minimum rule aggregates and a chief expert reviews under asymmetric authority, confirming or lowering the panel's recommendation but never raising it above the caps. The method was tested in the analysis of several research works showing consistency and avoiding overestimation from monolithic LLM classifiers.
