About Sinograph
What is Sinograph?
Most of what the world knows about Chinese AI arrives pre-interpreted. Sinograph is the layer underneath: the companies, institutes, and regulators shaping China's AI ecosystem — who they are, how they're connected, and what they actually say, in their own words.
Why does this exist?
Global AI governance increasingly requires understanding how different regimes work. China's AI governance ecosystem is the most consequential one that remains largely illegible to international audiences, not because information is unavailable, but because it's published in Chinese, scattered across WeChat accounts and Chinese official websites, and structured by institutional conventions that don't map neatly to Western categories.
Sinograph exists to close that gap, and the name reflects this mission. A sinograph is a Chinese character, a unit of meaning in a writing system. Sinograph treats China's AI ecosystem as a system of signs to be read, interpreted, and made legible.
Methodology
Bilingual sourcing
Chinese governance discourse is published primarily on WeChat, in Chinese. Relying exclusively on English-language analysis of Chinese AI governance introduces systematic distortion — not because English-language analysts are wrong, but because they necessarily filter, summarize, and reframe Chinese institutional language for Western audiences. Sinograph goes upstream: we read the original Chinese sources, preserve key terms in their original language where meaning would be lost in translation, and present institutional positioning as the actors themselves frame it.
Evidence discipline
Every institutional relationship on the map is backed by a primary-source citation. Approximately 81% of primary sources are Chinese-language — official ministry websites, TC260 standards documents, CAICT publications, university announcements. English-language secondary sources from established analysts (Carnegie, DigiChina, CSIS Interpret: China) are used for corroboration, not as primary evidence.
When primary sources do not support a proposed relationship, we record it as "Unverified" rather than fabricating a plausible-sounding connection. Documenting the absence of evidence is treated as a valid and meaningful research outcome, not a gap to be filled.
What counts as a relationship
We distinguish structural institutional ties from coverage. If an analyst writes about an organization, that is coverage — not a relationship. Only verifiable structural connections are included:
- Joint rulemaking — co-issued laws, regulations, standards, or explicit interagency coordination
- Institutional relationship — hierarchy, oversight, hosting, sponsorship, operational ties
- Personnel bridge — an individual whose affiliations connect two institutions
- Membership — formal association membership, standards working group participation, safety commitment signatory
- Collaboration — recurring joint work: dialogues, forums, joint research programs
- Publication / production — joint reports, joint principles, one actor publishing another's output
What Sinograph is not
Sinograph is not an advocacy project. It does not argue for or against any governance model. It does not provide policy or investment recommendations. It is a reference tool: designed to make information accessible and institutional structure visible, so that researchers, policymakers, and practitioners can form their own judgments with better information faster.
Feedback
Sinograph is a work in progress. If you find an error, a missing actor, a broken link, or a translation you would render differently, please let me know. Corrections and suggestions are both welcome.
Share feedbackGet in touch or collaboration inquiries: xuxinfan34@gmail.com