The Compute Flow Atlas (Gemini 3.6)

Core concept

The Compute Flow Atlas would track cross-border digital trade by measuring the compute power, data flow, and energy required to perform digital work. By monitoring capacity and activity at the hardware and infrastructure layer, it could make otherwise difficult-to-measure software as a service (SaaS), AI inference, and cloud workloads more visible to trade officials.

Top three metrics tracked

Primary policy objective

The Compute Flow Atlas would provide trade officials with a harder-to-manipulate proxy for digital imports based on actual server use. By tracking physical compute consumption, authorities could better assess digital tax bases, identify discrepancies between economic activity and reported profits, and use infrastructure data to inform digital trade policy and negotiations.

The Digital Value-Added Monitor (Claude Sonnet 5)

Core concept

The Digital Value-Added Monitor would unbundle global SaaS, cloud, and AI service revenue by estimating where economic value is actually created and consumed — not just where a parent company is headquartered or profits are booked. It combines active-user telemetry with revenue attribution to estimate value-added trade flows and provide greater visibility into the gap between where profits are reported and where economic activity takes place.

Top three metrics tracked

Primary policy objective

This monitor would provide tax and trade authorities with stronger evidence about where digital economic activity occurs and to which jurisdictions revenue may be attributable. Instead of relying primarily on where digital profits are booked, policymakers could use user-location and service data to inform tax policy and negotiate digital trade rules that better reflect where value is created and consumed.

Digital Trade Resilience Monitor (GPT-5.6)

Core concept

The Digital Trade Resilience Monitor would complement measures of digital trade flows with data on foreign technology dependence, digital infrastructure exposure, and data restriction risks that traditional trade statistics may miss. It would show not only how dependent countries are on foreign digital services and infrastructure, but also where critical vulnerabilities and chokepoints may emerge.

Top three metrics tracked

Primary policy objective

The Digital Trade Resilience Monitor would give economic and national security teams an early warning system for technology dependence. It would flag hidden risks — such as heavy reliance on foreign AI models, overseas cloud infrastructure, or vulnerable subsea cables — that could disrupt access during a diplomatic crisis or supply shock.

Conclusion

While traditional trade statistics may treat some cross-border digital activity as “ghost transactions,” the concepts described in this article offer policymakers three complementary lenses through which to understand and measure the digital economy: physical infrastructure use, economic activity and revenue attribution, and national security exposure.

They might offer the beginnings of a blueprint for a modern trade dashboard built for the digital era.