evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Apsakaleidja — Estonia's AI Tool for Catching Legislative Drafting Errors Before They Become Law

Estonia · Tallinn · See the Estonia profile · See the Tallinn profile

Evidence: Descriptive / self-reported Top 83% 40/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

After a one-word drafting slip left Estonia's online casinos untaxed for 2026 — an estimated €2m/month loss — a former government CIO built Apsakaleidja, an AI tool that scans every draft bill before parliament for the kind of error that caused it.

2 EUR million/month
Estimated monthly revenue loss from the uncorrected drafting error (2026)
102 of 112 bills
Bills before the Riigikogu flagged as high-risk for this error class (2026)
Apsakaleidja — Estonia's AI Tool for Catching Legislative Drafting Errors Before They Become Law

Details

Maturity
Pilot
Promoter
Independent civic-tech initiative by Luukas Ilves (Eesti.ai / Agentic State), tested by and offered to the Riigikogu (Parliament of Estonia)
Period
January 2026 – present
Keywords
AI policy analysis, legislative drafting, error detection, civic tech, e-governance

Context

In January 2026, a routine wording slip in an amendment to Estonia's Gambling Tax Act omitted the word for 'games of chance' (õnnemängud), leaving only 'games of skill' (osavusmängud) covered by a tax increase — an error that would have cost roughly €2 million a month in lost revenue if left uncorrected before the law took effect. Luukas Ilves, a former deputy secretary general for digital development at Estonia's Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications and now an advisor on Ukraine's digital transformation, built a prototype called Apsakaleidja ('mistake-finder') in a matter of hours to see whether AI could have caught the mistake. The tool pulls every draft bill currently before the Riigikogu, feeds it to large language models, and flags inconsistent use of defined terms, broken cross-references, contradictions between a bill's explanatory memorandum and its legal text, arithmetic errors and impossible dates.

Results

When Ilves ran the gambling tax amendment through Claude and Gemini, both models immediately identified the missing word. Applied to the 112 bills before parliament at the time, Apsakaleidja flagged 102 as high-risk for this class of error. Estonian Prime Minister Kristen Michal publicly urged the Riigikogu to start using AI tools like this to check bills, and Riigikogu officials told Ilves they had already used the prototype to catch and fix new drafting slips.

Conclusions

Apsakaleidja is not (yet) an official parliamentary system: it is an independent civic-tech prototype built and run outside any formal procurement or oversight process, with no published accuracy evaluation, error-rate audit, or funding commitment behind it.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Low (< €50k) — No budget disclosed; built as an individual prototype project.
Time to results
Short (< 1 year) — Prototype built in a matter of hours in January 2026; in informal use by Riigikogu officials since.
Staffing & skills
Built and run by a single individual, Luukas Ilves (former Estonian deputy secretary general for digital development; now an Eesti.ai/Agentic State advisor), outside any formal government team or procurement process

Conditions for success

  • Access to all draft bills currently before the Riigikogu for automated checking
  • Use of large language models (Claude and Gemini) capable of catching wording, cross-reference, date and arithmetic inconsistencies
  • High-profile public and political visibility (Prime Ministerial endorsement) driving informal uptake by parliamentary officials

Common failure modes

  • No published accuracy evaluation or error-rate audit
  • Runs outside any formal procurement or oversight process, with no funding commitment or institutional ownership
  • Not yet an official parliamentary system

Where it fits

Governance type
national parliament (legislative drafting quality control)
Scale
national
Income level
high-income

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes Digital Europe Programme

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful