Between the CAIO and the board a gap appears, or an interface.
The interface carries rights and information.
It is not a second CAIO.
I run retained AI Executive Search mandates from Hamburg for DACH seats. This page owns the interface: not the accountability spine, not the reporting-line hub, and not NED hold.
The interface defines who carries CAIO↔board information and rights without replacing the bearer.
Not: 'the board is accountable' as H1.
Not: reporting line as a contract clone.
Not: the NED who can hold the CAIO as hold capacity.
Interface is the cut between. Hold is board judgment. Reporting is the line. Three products.
Not board AI accountability.
Not the reporting-line hub management↔supervisory board.
Not NED-who-holds-the-CAIO as an H1 steal.
Not an invented duty and not a find-a-mandate how-to.
One-line pointers are fine. Here: the interface cut.
Which information leaves the CAIO, and who condenses it.
Which rights stay with the board without paralysing the bearer.
Who escalates in conflict, without a shadow CAIO.
Without the cut, politics fills the gap.
Because search without an interface seats the CAIO in an empty board window.
Because candidates without a cut build their own bridge, and shift power.
Because mandates without an interface become a 'communication problem' after the first quarter.
If the interface is real, retain the AI Executive Search mandate with an interface cut in the brief: not another title in between.
If you only draw a reporting line, you do not have an interface yet.
No. Reporting line is the line contract. This page is the rights/info interface between CAIO and board.
No. Hold is challenge capacity. Interface is the cut between.
No. Often a clear cut is enough, without a new chair.
