Sector Vulnerability Gap
Comparing expert vulnerability ratings (how vulnerable each sector is to AI risks) vs governance document coverage (how many governance documents address each sector). The gap reveals sectors where governance attention doesn’t match expert assessments of vulnerability. Governance sectors are mapped from 19 application-area categories to 14 NAICS sectors, so gap values are approximate—the relative ordering is more reliable than exact numbers.
How to read this
Each row represents one of 14 NAICS sectors with two dots: governance coverage (green) and expert vulnerability (orange), connected by a line whose length encodes the gap. Positive gaps mean experts rate the sector as more vulnerable than governance documents cover. Both metrics are min-max normalized to 0-100% for visual comparison. Hover over any row for raw values.
Key Takeaways
- 1.Information has the largest vulnerability gap at +78pp — experts rate it as highly vulnerable but governance coverage is relatively low.
- 2.Agri/Mining/Constr/Mfg shows the biggest over-governance at -15pp — governance attention exceeds expert vulnerability assessments.
- 3.Across all 14 sectors, 9 are under-governed and 4 are over-governed relative to expert vulnerability ratings.
- 4.National Security receives the most governance attention (160 docs), reflecting its prominence in regulatory frameworks.
Both metrics are min-max normalized to 0-100% for visual comparison. Governance sectors are hand-mapped from 19 application-area categories to 14 NAICS sectors; 5 NAICS sectors have no matching governance category and show zero coverage. Multiple source categories sometimes map to a single NAICS sector, which can inflate its governance count.