Board Advisory
Board AI Advisory
Directors are being asked to govern AI they haven't been equipped to govern. We change that — and we deliver the frameworks that make it stick.
Most boards are governing AI with less information than their management team has. That is the structural problem.
Boards that cannot articulate their AI governance position face regulatory, reputational and personal liability risk. The EU AI Act places accountability obligations directly on directors — not just on management.
The context
What boards are facing
Boards are being asked to approve AI strategies, sign off on AI risk, and take accountability for AI outcomes — often without a briefing, a framework, or a clear picture of what is actually in use across the organisation.
The EU AI Act has made that gap a liability. Boards of organisations deploying high-risk AI systems now carry documented oversight and accountability obligations. The question is no longer whether to govern AI — it is whether your governance will hold up when it is tested.
What we deliver
What we deliver
Board briefings
A structured session that gives directors a clear picture of AI exposure across the organisation, the regulatory obligations that apply, and the questions they should be asking management. Delivered and done — not a starting point for a dependency.
Governance frameworks
Accountability structures, oversight policies, and AI risk controls built for your organisation and deployed. Not a generic template. One energy investment firm had a full framework live across three business functions in four weeks.
Director education programmes
The IoD Ireland “Governing in an AI World” programme — first bespoke external delivery by Acuity. Built around what directors actually need to exercise oversight, not what makes a good conference session.
EU AI Act liability briefings
A clear, jargon-free account of what your board’s obligations are, which AI systems in your organisation are in scope, and what documented governance you need to have in place before Ireland’s AI Office becomes fully operational.
Board-level oversight tools
The language, frameworks, and question sets that allow directors to hold management to account on AI without being dependent on management for the interpretation.
Proof
What this has looked like in practice
IoD Ireland
15 practitioner tools across 5 governance categories, co-branded design system built from scratch, distributed to the full member network. Selected as delivery partner for the institute’s first bespoke external governance programme. Programme Director: “Designed beautifully.”
Law Society of Ireland
Two practitioner tools anchored to existing conduct obligations, vendor-neutral, mapped to personal professional liability. Live across the full membership. The AI resources have been the most-viewed on the Law Society platform since launch.
PRA/FCA-regulated Nordic bank
Six intelligence gaps mapped. Single intelligence architecture designed to address all of them: meeting memory agents, a meeting replaceability rubric, workstream context files, CRAFT prompting framework, data sovereignty architecture reviewed against residency requirements. Head of Communications: “You couldn’t have done better. Absolutely nailed it.”
Experience
Grounded in boardroom experience
Ger Perdisatt is a current Non-Executive Director at Dublin Airport Authority — where he chairs the Strategic Infrastructure & Sustainability Committee overseeing a €5bn capital programme — and at Tailte Éireann, the national land registry, mapping, and valuation authority.
Board advisory is not a service line built on theory. It is grounded in what it actually takes to govern a complex organisation — and what directors need to hear, as distinct from what they are typically told.
Ger Perdisatt — NED credentials
FAQ
Common questions
What are board directors' responsibilities under the EU AI Act?
Boards of organisations deploying high-risk AI systems carry documented oversight and accountability obligations under the EU AI Act. Directors are expected to understand the nature of AI systems in use, ensure appropriate governance structures exist, and be able to account for material AI risks. Ireland's AI Office is fully operational from August 2026 — after which enforcement is active. Boards that cannot demonstrate a governance position are exposed to regulatory, reputational, and personal liability risk.
How should a board approach AI governance?
Start with a clear inventory of what AI is actually being used across the organisation — which is rarely what the board has been told. From there, build the accountability structures and oversight mechanisms that allow directors to exercise genuine governance rather than rubber-stamp management decisions. Acuity typically delivers a governance framework, a set of board-level oversight questions, and a director education component. The framework is built and deployed — not handed over as a document for someone else to implement.
What questions should a board ask management about AI?
What AI systems are we currently using or developing? Which are classified as high-risk under the EU AI Act? Who is accountable for each system's performance and compliance? What is our process for reviewing AI before deployment? Have we assessed the liability implications of AI errors or failures? What is our position if an AI system causes harm to a customer, employee, or third party? These are the questions that create the accountability structure. Most boards cannot answer them. The advisory work is designed to change that.
Do non-executive directors need specialist AI knowledge?
No. Directors need sufficient literacy to ask the right questions, identify red flags, and hold management to account — not to understand the technology. The gap for most boards is not technical understanding. It is the language and frameworks to exercise effective oversight. That is what the advisory work delivers.
Arrange a Board AI Briefing
A structured conversation about where your board stands and what it needs. No preparation required on your side.