Board-level decision authority when AI governance becomes personally defensible — and legally exposed
Patrick Upmann’s work began as research into why AI governance repeatedly fails precisely when it is tested — under audit, incidents, and liability pressure. As the architect of the AIGN OS and author of SSRN-published research, he identified a structural gap between regulatory ambition and governance that can actually hold when accountability becomes personal.
His work begins where responsibility can no longer be delegated, postponed, or diluted through frameworks, committees, or policies.
Boards engage Patrick when:
- audits are announced or imminent
- regulators inquire or request evidence
- incidents occur or are anticipated
- personal and organisational liability exposure becomes real
Patrick is engaged to restore clear decision authority, unambiguous accountability, and admissible governance evidence — before governance is tested under pressure.
From governance concepts to defensible decisions
Most advisory approaches focus on principles, policies, or regulation in isolation.
Patrick’s work is anchored in a single practical question:
What will actually hold under audit, regulatory scrutiny, incidents, and court review?
He operates precisely where governance is tested:
- decisions that must be signed, not discussed
- authority that must be explicit, documented, and defensible
- evidence that must exist before it is requested
- escalation paths that must function under pressure
His mandates are time-boxed, exposure-driven, and accountability-focused — designed to stabilise governance beforeincidents occur or scrutiny intensifies.
AI governance began to matter when accountability crossed the threshold from systems to people.
Patrick Upmann
This threshold defines where my work begins.
What this work is — and what it is not
Patrick’s role is not advisory in the conventional sense.
This work is not:
- policy consulting without decision authority
- committee facilitation without escalation power
- certification theatre without operational consequence
- retrospective remediation after accountability has already crystallised
Strategy is part of this work only where it leads to named decision authority, assigned responsibility, and defensible outcomes.
Patrick does not deliver strategy as intent or aspiration, but as a decision framework that must hold under audit, regulatory scrutiny, and liability exposure.
He is engaged when governance must be decided, assigned, documented, and defended — not discussed.efensible outcomes.
Patrick does not deliver strategy as intent or aspiration, but as a decision framework that must hold under audit, regulatory scrutiny, and liability exposure.
Patrick is engaged when governance must be decided, assigned, documented, and defended — not discussed.
Mandate context — where this work is applied
This work is applied in environments where accountability cannot be abstracted.
Patrick Upmann has been engaged in interim and decision-level roles across regulated and exposure-heavy contexts, including:
- board-mandated interim roles with explicit decision authority
- AI, data, and regulatory governance stabilisation under announced or ongoing audits
- EU-regulated environments spanning AI Act, DORA, NIS2, Data Act, GDPR and data protection
- incident-proximate governance remediation before liability crystallisation
- cross-functional authority across Legal, Risk, Compliance, Technology, and Operations
Advisory work without decision rights is explicitly out of scope.
Systemic AI Governance
Patrick is the architect of the world’s AI Governance Operating System (AIGN OS) a system that underpins his board-level mandates, but is not the mandate itself. and the inventor of the ASGR Index, a global benchmark for systemic AI governance readiness.Through this work, he defines Systemic AI Governance:
Governance not as documentation, declared intent, or policy architecture —
but as operational infrastructure that must withstand real-world stress.
In this model, governance is not measured by the completeness of frameworks, but by:
- who holds decision authority
- on which legal and organisational basis
- with which admissible evidence
- under real pressure
Shaping the global AI governance discourse
Beyond formal mandates, Patrick Upmann actively shapes the global AI governance discourse at the intersection of boards, regulators, practitioners, and policymakers. Through his public analysis and ongoing engagement, he reaches a global professional audience of more than 15,500 followers on LinkedIn, including board members, legal counsel, regulators, and senior decision-makers across industries and jurisdictions.
This platform is not used for commentary or opinion, but to surface governance blind spots, stress-test regulatory assumptions, and frame decision-relevant questions before they become audit findings, regulatory expectations, or legal disputes.
Governance before and after scrutiny
Before
- unclear or diffused decision authority
- fragmented or non-admissible evidence
- escalation paths dependent on individuals
- governance existing primarily on paper
After
- named and accepted decision authority
- board-ready, admissible evidence
- escalation paths that function under stress
- governance that holds without reconstruction
A governing principle
Patrick’s work follows a single, uncompromising principle:
If governance needs to be reconstructed after the fact, it never existed. His role is to ensure that AI governance is present before it is tested —
and defensible when it is.