Skip to main content

A practice of Techné AI

BoardSight AI

Independent AI governance advisory for boards, audit committees, and the D&O ecosystem.

BoardSight is the practice at Techné AI that builds the documented AI oversight record directors need. The work addresses three pressure points now converging on the boardroom: D&O underwriters pricing AI governance into renewals, the Caremark duty of oversight extending to AI as a mission-critical system, and securities class actions citing AI disclosure failures. Every engagement produces evidence — minutes, oversight memos, reporting cadences — that a director can rely on and that internal counsel and external counterparties can consume.

The thesis

AI governance has moved from a board education topic to a board liability topic.

The question directors face in 2026 is no longer whether to discuss AI in the boardroom — it is whether the discussion is documented in a form that satisfies the duty of care, withstands underwriter scrutiny at renewal, and produces a record that a future plaintiff cannot use to argue that the board failed to act.

Three forces are converging:

Caremark.

The Delaware courts have extended director oversight duties to "mission-critical" operational risks. Recent decisions — Marchand, Clovis, Boeing, McDonald's — establish that boards must implement and monitor reporting systems for the risks central to the company's business. For organizations of meaningful AI deployment, AI governance is now within that category.

D&O underwriting.

Major D&O carriers have begun including AI governance questions on renewal applications and requesting evidence of board-level oversight as part of pricing discussions. Boards that can produce a documented oversight record obtain materially better outcomes in those conversations.

Securities class actions.

Filings citing AI-related disclosure inadequacies are accelerating. The Stanford Securities Class Action Clearinghouse and Cornerstone Research are tracking the trend. Directors named in these suits face exposure that maps directly to whether the board's AI oversight is documented and defensible.

Who this is for

  • Independent directors and audit committee chairs
  • Risk committee chairs and lead directors
  • General counsel preparing board and committee materials on AI
  • Corporate secretaries
  • D&O brokers and underwriters supporting director clients
  • PE operating partners with portfolio-wide D&O exposure

Profile of the engagement-driving director: a director who has heard AI raised in the boardroom, has seen the proxy advisor guidance update, and is asking — independently of management — what the board's documented oversight posture actually is. BoardSight is built for that director.

What's at stake

Three places the record gets read.

At renewal

D&O carriers ask about AI governance. Boards without documented oversight face higher premiums, narrower coverage, or both. Boards with documented oversight bring evidence to the renewal conversation.

Under Caremark

The duty of oversight requires reporting systems for mission-critical risks, with director attention to red flags. For directors of organizations with meaningful AI deployment, that obligation extends to AI.

In litigation

Discovery in any AI-related dispute will demand the board's record. The question is not whether discovery happens; the question is what the record shows when it does.

Where to start

Two paths.

Request the briefing.

The AI Governance & D&O Liability briefing is the most efficient orientation to the practice's frame. In active circulation among practitioners and underwriters.

Schedule a scoping conversation.

A 30-minute call with the principal for boards that already know they need a structured engagement.