The journal

PwC Gives Boards Six Actions for AI. None of Them Is Judgment.

The board guidance is structurally sound — allocate oversight, assign accountability, monitor outcomes. But it assumes boards can evaluate management's AI judgment, and says nothing about how they acquire their own.

PwC's memorandum on board oversight of AI transformation, posted on the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance offers six actions: - govern AI as a transformation, - choose where to lead or exit, - steer talent, - guide the shift to a workforce of people and agents, - oversee risks, - monitor outcomes. Structurally, this is sound — especially the point that only 17% of S&P 500 boards even have a technology committee. What the memo leaves out is harder: every one of its six actions is an act of judgment, not process. - 'Align on where to lead, lag, or exit' is a decision under uncertainty that no framework makes for you. A board that cannot challenge management's reasoning — only its reporting — is practising delegation with abdication built in. The missing seventh action: - build the board's own capacity to disagree with the CAIO, before the transformation makes disagreement expensive.

The list

Entries arrive weekly. Leave an address and they come to you, along with the publication date when there is one.