Run Governance That Actually Executes

Proof required

Submit a governance map (diagram or table) showing the current decision rights and reporting lines, and a written analysis of at least 500 words identifying three specific governance execution gaps. Each gap must be described with: what governance mechanism was designed to do, what is actually happening in practice, and the operational impact of the gap. ADVERSARIAL VERIFICATION: a named governance, legal, or senior operations professional (5+ years experience in governance or board-level work) must read the map and analysis and provide written confirmation that the gaps identified are substantive execution failures, not just aspirational improvements.

What gets checked

• Governance map covering decision rights, escalation paths, and accountability assignments
• 500-word analysis identifying three gaps, each with: designed behaviour, actual behaviour, and operational impact
• Written confirmation from a named governance/legal/senior operations professional (5+ years) that the gaps are substantive

Common mistakes

• Mapping governance as it is documented (org chart, committee terms of reference) rather than as it actually operates — governance execution gaps are invisible in documentation; they only appear when you observe how decisions are actually made and acted on
• Identifying aspirational gaps ('the board should have more diverse perspectives') rather than execution gaps ('the audit committee's quarterly risk review produces a report that is not distributed to the operating team responsible for risk mitigation') — execution gaps have a causal mechanism connecting governance decisions to operational failures
• Confusing a governance design problem with an execution problem — if a governance mechanism was never designed to do what it is failing to do, the gap is in design, not execution; this milestone is specifically about execution

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• The governance map must reflect actual operation, not documentation — ask the submitter how they verified the map against real behaviour (interviews with executives, observation of committee meetings, review of decision logs)
• Each gap must have a stated operational impact — if the submitter cannot name the operational consequence of the execution gap, the gap is aspirational rather than substantive
• The confirming reviewer must have experience in governance or board-level work — a general manager without governance experience does not satisfy the 5+ years governance requirement

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit a governance execution improvement report covering: (1) the two interventions designed and the governance execution gaps they address; (2) evidence that each intervention was implemented (a resolution, email, policy update, or process change, with date); (3) evidence of operation under the new governance arrangement for at least 6 weeks (meeting notes, decision logs, updated accountability matrix, or equivalent). ADVERSARIAL VERIFICATION: your named governance reviewer reads the intervention design before implementation and provides written feedback confirming the interventions address the execution mechanism rather than creating new documentation that will also not be followed.

What gets checked

• Two interventions documented with their target execution gaps and implementation evidence
• Evidence of operation under the new arrangement for at least 6 weeks — not just implementation evidence
• Pre-implementation feedback from the governance reviewer confirming the interventions target execution mechanisms

Common mistakes

• Creating new governance documentation (new terms of reference, new policy) without changing the underlying decision or accountability behaviour — governance execution failures are usually behavioural, not documentary
• Implementing an intervention without running it through a real governance cycle — if the committee meets quarterly, 6 weeks of operation may only include one governance event; document what that event demonstrated
• Measuring input (did the new process exist?) rather than execution (did the governance decision produce the operational action it was designed to produce?) — measure the output of the governance mechanism, not just its presence

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• The implementation evidence must show actual operation, not just policy creation — a new policy document with no evidence of use does not satisfy this milestone
• 6 weeks of operation must be documented — if the governance cycle is quarterly, one cycle counts if it is fully documented
• The reviewer's pre-implementation feedback is the core adversarial check — the question is whether the interventions will actually change behaviour, not whether they are well-intentioned

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit your governance execution improvement report and a record of the challenge session: names and professional roles of all panellists (≥2), date and duration (≥30 minutes), and notes on at least three challenges posed and your responses. A written statement from the primary governance reviewer (50+ words) confirming that the improvements represent genuine execution changes rather than documentation additions. ADVERSARIAL VERIFICATION RULE Level 2: live session required.

What gets checked

• Governance execution improvement report: M1 gap analysis + M2 results + forward recommendations
• Challenge session record with ≥2 named panellists (both with governance experience), date and duration ≥30 minutes, ≥3 challenges documented
• Written statement from primary reviewer (50+ words) confirming improvements represent behavioural rather than documentary changes

Common mistakes

• Presenting outcomes without the underlying evidence — the panel will ask to see the decision logs, meeting notes, or accountability records that demonstrate the governance mechanism is now executing differently
• Overstating the durability of improvements based on 6–8 weeks of operation — good panel members will challenge whether governance behaviour under a new arrangement has been tested under pressure (a contested decision, a resource-constrained period)
• Including only positive results in the report — a governance execution improvement that produced mixed results with one gap addressed and one not yet resolved is more credible than a report claiming all gaps are closed after 8 weeks

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Both panellists must have governance experience — a general manager and an operations lead do not constitute a governance-literate panel
• The session must be live — ADVERSARIAL VERIFICATION RULE Level 2 requires synchronous challenge, not written questions and answers
• The reviewer statement must address behavioural change specifically — 'the governance process now functions differently because…' is the type of claim the statement should make, not just 'great work overall'

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.