Governance Gravity Quick Reference
Before discussing any new strategically consequential capability, ask
- 01
Has it become strategically consequential?
Does the enterprise now depend upon this capability in a way that would materially affect its performance, resilience or legitimacy if it failed?
- 02
Which permanent Board responsibility does it engage?
- Supervision
- Risk
- Culture
- Non-Interference
If the answer is "none", it probably belongs to management.
If the answer is "one or more", it belongs on the Board's agenda, regardless of where it originated.
- 03
Is the Board governing or managing?
The Board should answer
- Why does this capability matter?
- What exposure does it create?
- What conduct does it influence?
- How will the Board know if governance is failing?
The Board should not be expected to answer
- How should it be designed?
- Which model should be selected?
- Which controls should be implemented?
- How should it be operated?
- 04
Has the Escape Velocity Threshold been crossed?
Ask
- Has organisational dependence outgrown ordinary governance?
- Has decision speed exceeded normal Board cadence?
- Has technical opacity weakened meaningful oversight?
- Has delegation weakened accountability?
- Have existing governance structures ceased to provide effective assurance?
If yes, governance structures may need to evolve.
If no, ordinary Corporate Governance should remain sufficient.
Section II
Five Governance Red Flags
- AI is discussed only as a technology initiative.
- Accountability cannot be reconstructed after significant decisions.
- Escalation depends entirely upon management judgement.
- The Board receives performance metrics but little governance evidence.
- New committees are proposed before the governance problem has been clearly defined.
Section III
The One Question That Matters
Has this capability become part of what the Board is answerable for?
If the answer is no, it remains an operational matter.
If the answer is yes, Governance Gravity is already at work.