Know whether the AI decision will survive scrutiny before somebody else tests it.
Leave with a clear view of what can be defended, what remains assumption, what requires board challenge and what must happen before approval.
The committee has information but cannot tell whether the decision is defensible.
- Management says the risk is controlled.
- Evidence is spread across functions and suppliers.
- Authority, assumptions or challenge are difficult to reconstruct.
- The board is being asked to rely on reassurance.
The decision can be explained, challenged and defended.
- The material decision is explicit.
- The evidence and remaining uncertainty are visible.
- The accountable owner and decision authority are clear.
- The review trigger and smallest defensible next step are recorded.
Decision position
What management decided, the rationale and the assumptions underneath it.
Evidence position
What supports the conclusion and where evidence is weak or absent.
Board challenge
The questions that should be answered before the position hardens.
Assurance gaps
What cannot yet be demonstrated under challenge.
Required actions
What needs an owner, evidence, remediation or explicit acceptance.
Review triggers
The conditions that should force the organisation to reconsider.
A material AI decision has already been made, is about to be made or needs to survive Audit Committee, board, regulator or audit scrutiny.
Bring the live decision, management position or unresolved issue. The engagement starts there.