Generative artificial intelligence has transformed synthetic media from a specialized technical concern into a systemic governance challenge. Existing AI readiness frameworks evaluate whether states can adopt, deploy, and regulate AI, but they do not systematically assess whether societies can preserve the authenticity, trustworthiness, and resilience of information circulating within AI-enabled environments. This Perspective introduces Information-Integrity Readiness (IIR) as a distinct but complementary governance construct. Through an interdisciplinary narrative synthesis of AI governance, readiness, digital resilience, misinformation, and synthetic-media scholarship, the article identifies an Information-Integrity Gap and develops a five-pillar framework comprising institutional readiness, technical authenticity readiness, legal and regulatory readiness, societal resilience readiness, and sector-specific readiness. The framework is theoretically anchored in institutional theory, policy capacity theory, and socio-technical systems theory, which, respectively, explain legitimacy and coordination, the analytical-operational-political capacities required for implementation, and the interdependence of technical and social governance arrangements. Somalia is used as an illustrative application, while Kenya is included only as a concise transferability illustration rather than a second comparative case. The Perspective advances four theory-linked propositions for future empirical testing, clarifies qualitative maturity criteria for illustrative readiness assessment, outlines candidate indicators for future operationalization, and proposes a phased policy roadmap. The central argument is that the next generation of AI governance must move beyond measuring technological capability toward evaluating whether societies can sustain trustworthy information ecosystems under conditions of pervasive synthetic media.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ahmed et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: