Insights & Analysis
Foundational research, essays, and monthly briefings on AI oversight governance.
Foundational research, essays, and monthly briefings on AI oversight governance.
How the duty of oversight applies to AI, and the legal framework for insulating the board from bad faith failure-to-monitor claims.
Mapping the 2026 enforcement environment. Four forces converging on one demand, despite repeals and preemption fights.
Assigning AI risk to a committee is not governing it. Why the Delaware doctrine demands a program, not just a venue.
Accountability does not transfer with the vendor contract. Four bodies of law, four industries, and one unifying principle.
When AI acts rather than advises, model risk frameworks fail. Why the oversight program is the only framework that reaches it.
An informed decision requires a decision-maker still capable of making it. As institutions embed AI into consequential decisions, the board must govern the human judgment around the system, not only the system.
The honest answer is a test, not a checklist: can the organization demonstrate, in evidence, that it made an informed decision about AI risk?
AI oversight is not a new legal theory. It is the existing duty of board oversight applied to the newest mission-critical risk.
Forming a committee is the most common response to AI risk, and the most misleading. Governance is a program.
AI is being adopted faster than most organizations can govern it. The distance between the two speeds is where fiduciary risk lives.