The AI Act places duties on organisations according to their role and the systems they use. Boards need a reliable view of those obligations, the applicable dates and the people responsible for evidence and oversight.

Human oversight means little if nobody has the authority, time or information to intervene. Boards should test how automated decisions can be challenged, paused and corrected in the circumstances where it matters.

Words such as cautious and balanced leave plenty of room for interpretation. A board-approved risk appetite becomes useful when people can see what it permits, where the limits sit and what happens when those limits are approached.

A useful conversation with the CISO connects cyber exposure to the business and the decisions directors must take. These ten questions ask for evidence, ownership and choices without expecting the board to run security operations.

A group chart shows ownership. It may say little about where decisions are made, obligations sit or money moves. Boards need a structure they can explain before they approve changes to it.

When a serious incident reaches the board, directors need a clear picture of who is leading, what is known and which decisions cannot wait. Early discipline helps management respond without facing a second chain of command.

The cash balance tells only part of the story. Before approving another commitment, boards need a clear view of future payments, conditional obligations and the money that may be difficult to move when it is needed.

Audit, risk and remuneration committees can each do their job well while a shared issue remains unresolved. The full board needs to see where responsibilities meet and ensure that someone brings the combined question back for a decision.

Training is complete, backups are running and the dashboard is green. What evidence shows that the business could respond to an incident and recover the services that matter?

The contract may allow an exit while the business remains heavily dependent on the supplier. Understanding the work, cost and disruption involved makes renewal and investment decisions more credible.

A majority owner wants a quick decision. A minority investor wants more information. Fair treatment is tested in moments like these. What boards should check before a vote, a capital increase or a transaction involving an owner.