Verity Readiness Report
Northbridge Homes · Housing association, 14,000 homes · Session: The Repairs Queue · Sample session
Northbridge Homes is a fictional organisation. This sample shows the shape of a Readiness Report; the scores and evidence are illustrative.
Reading
Capable
Four decisions at the board table, scored against six measures of AI governance readiness.
The board recognised that the tool was making decisions it had never been approved to make, but only after the second decision had been taken.
Challenge was specific and evidence based. The 22 per cent improvement claim was tested, and the waiting time figures were questioned.
Directors weighed the effect on individual residents against the improvement in service, and asked for vulnerable cases to be excluded pending review.
Escalation to the regulator was raised but left with the executive, without a date, an owner or a route for reporting back to the board.
A single accountable director was named for the tool, although the boundary with the vendor's responsibility was never settled.
A decision was reached inside the session, pausing automated prioritisation while the purpose and the data were reviewed.
- Challenge stayed on the residents affected rather than on the technology, which kept the discussion honest.
- The pause on automated prioritisation was settled in the meeting rather than being deferred to a later report.
- One accountable director was named before the session closed, with the board aware of the decision.
- 1Set a dated escalation route to the regulator, with a named owner, for any AI system found to be operating outside its approved purpose.
- 2Add a standing assurance question on model purpose and vendor change notification to the board's AI reporting.
- 3Run one short scenario each quarter so that challenge and escalation are practised between the full annual sessions.