Methodology
How a governance judgment becomes a defensible score.
Twelve competencies, ten governance failure patterns, a 1.00–5.00 scale, and an evidence ceiling on every single score. No percentages, no personality typing, no pass mark.
The 1.00–5.00 judgment scale
The 1.00–5.00 judgment scale
| Level | Detail |
|---|---|
| 1.00 | Material deficiency |
| 2.00 | Below expected standard |
| 3.00 | Adequate: expected minimum |
| 4.00 | Strong |
| 5.00 | Exceptional |
| Band | start | end |
|---|---|---|
| Material deficiency | 1 | 2 |
| Below expected standard | 2 | 3 |
| Adequate: expected minimum | 3 | 4 |
| Strong | 4 | 5 |
The scale measures demonstrated governance judgment, not confidence and not seniority.
Evidence caps
Evidence quality sets the highest score a competency can reach. A strong answer with missing evidence is capped, and the report says so explicitly.
| Evidence | cap |
|---|---|
| Strong | 5.00 |
| Good | 4.50 |
| Moderate | 4.00 |
| Weak | 3.25 |
| Missing | 2.75 |
Twelve competencies
Assessed through open-ended scenarios. Every response is scored against the same rubric in both languages.
- C1Strategic Judgment
- C2Financial Acumen
- C3Risk Oversight
- C4Technology, Cyber & AI Literacy
- C5Regulatory & Legal Awareness
- C6Human Capital & Talent Oversight
- C7ESG & Stakeholder Judgment
- C8Crisis & Reputation Management
- C9Behavioral Governance
- C10Independence & Conflict Resilience
- C11Boardroom Contribution & Follow-Through
- C12Board System Contribution
Ten governance failure patterns
Patterns are detected across responses, not from a single answer. A critical pattern triggers a red flag.
- FP1Weak Risk Oversight
- FP2Skills Mismatch
- FP3Filtered Information
- FP4Passivity / Deference
- FP5Groupthink
- FP6Incentive Blindness
- FP7Conflict Fragility
- FP8Crisis Unreadiness
- FP9Compliance Formalism
- FP10Strategic Myopia
Which patterns the red-flag register triggers on
All ten patterns are assessed and reported. Six of them additionally carry automated red-flag rules; the remaining four are diagnostic-only — they are read from the responses and stated in the report, but they do not fire an automated rule.
| Failure pattern | Automated red-flag rules |
|---|---|
| FP1 Weak Risk Oversight | Diagnostic only |
| FP2 Skills Mismatch | Diagnostic only |
| FP3 Filtered Information | 3 |
| FP4 Passivity / Deference | 5 |
| FP5 Groupthink | 1 |
| FP6 Incentive Blindness | Diagnostic only |
| FP7 Conflict Fragility | 3 |
| FP8 Crisis Unreadiness | 1 |
| FP9 Compliance Formalism | 3 |
| FP10 Strategic Myopia | Diagnostic only |
Human review
- Every AI evaluation produced by the current pipeline records its prompt version, model and output.
- A critical red flag locks the affected competency at a maximum of 1.99 until a reviewer records a decision.
- Reviewer edits are versioned; the original AI draft is never silently overwritten.
- Reports are produced in English and French from the same scored evidence.