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
EXHIBIT 1
The 1.00–5.00 judgment scale
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
Human review and reproducibility
- Every AI evaluation records its prompt version, model and output, so a score can be replayed and reproduced.
- Critical red flags lock the report until a human reviewer clears or escalates them.
- Reviewer edits are versioned; the original AI draft is never silently overwritten.
- Reports are produced in English and French from the same scored evidence.