That's a question boards are now being expected to answer directly, for something far less dramatic than a rogue AI: their own technology risk.
MyDirector-OS was built with exactly that reality in mind.
BoardLens reviews board packs through the lens of the specific regulatory framework governing that appointment, jurisdiction by jurisdiction, so an ICT risk gap that should be raising a DORA question for one board, or a cyber resilience question under a different regulator's framework for another, gets flagged as one, not lost inside 200 pages of routine reporting. Documents are processed on request and discarded using a zero-retention policy with our AI provider, nothing stored, nothing used to train any model.
The infrastructure question runs both ways. This platform's own primary data processing sits on UK and EU infrastructure carrying SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 attestations, the same class of third-party assurance a board should be asking its own critical technology providers to demonstrate. Practising the standard, not just describing it.
The Director's Assistant answers governance questions grounded in the framework that actually applies to each of your boards, not generic principles borrowed from wherever a model happened to learn them. Because every appointment carries its own regulatory context, the ICT risk tolerance question one board faces and the entirely different framework a board in another jurisdiction answers to are both handled the way they should be: separately, specifically, and accurately.
The boards already asking these questions, across every appointment, are exactly where they need to be. The ones that aren't have a clear, achievable path to get there, one appointment at a time.