Questions directors ask before they begin

Two personas in V1: aspiring directors preparing a first mandate, and sitting directors assessing effectiveness, committee fit and renewal readiness. Boards can run a workspace for several directors.

Open-ended governance scenarios you answer in your own words, plus the option to attach evidence for each competency. There are no multiple-choice questions and no keyword matching.

Plan for one focused session. You can save and resume; the report is released after scoring and, where a red flag exists, human review.

English and French. You answer in either; the report is produced in the language you choose.

It is a measurement, not a pass/fail exam. The verdict places your profile in an alignment band and the development plan tells you what evidence would move it.

Attributable artefacts showing your judgment in action: minutes, committee memoranda, decision records, post-mortems, advisory-board notes. Each item is graded Strong, Good, Moderate, Weak or Missing.

It sets a ceiling on each competency score according to the evidence grade: Strong 5.00, Good 4.50, Moderate 4.00, Weak 3.25, Missing 2.75. A strong response with weak evidence cannot exceed 3.25 on that competency.

Your judgment will be scored fairly, but every competency will be capped at 2.75. The development plan then becomes the main output: which artefacts to build first.

Documents are graded, never reproduced in the report. You may redact names and figures before attaching; grading considers attributability and contemporaneity, not the sensitive content itself.

A critical finding on independence, conflicts of interest or behavioural governance. It locks the affected competency and triggers mandatory human review before any report is released. The reviewer's decision is recorded in your report.

Responses are scored against fixed rubric anchors, and the same response with the same evidence produces the same score. Reproducibility across different phrasings of the same judgment is part of the methodology's design and is disclosed in every report.

A verdict, twelve competency scores with their evidence caps, a failure-pattern screen, a development plan with evidence targets, an evidence log, a review log and a methodology appendix.

PDF for the committee, DOCX for editing, XLSX with scores, caps, grades and weights.

Yes. The sample report shows a complete illustrative report on a synthetic profile.

Yes, and that is the intended cycle: rebuild evidence, reassess, show the movement. Each assessment is purchased separately.

You. Results are not shared with boards, nomination committees, search firms or employers. The full access matrix is on the confidentiality page.

Only a reviewer examining a critical red flag, and only the flagged material. Rubric scoring is automated.

Yes. Deletion removes your assessment, evidence and report, and your contribution to any aggregate.

Your individual report remains private to you. The chair sees coverage counts and anonymised distributions. You can choose to share your report; the choice is logged.

No. You buy a single assessment for your persona; the full report and development plan are included.

Workspaces are quoted per board. Request a proposal from the pricing page.

Refund terms are set out in the terms of service.