Presented to the Board or a committee
Drevlqari Energy Software
Board product-investment and technical-risk discussions
April 2023–present
Explains validation limits and release scope through the CEO; no statutory seat or committee vote.
Sohail Qazlverni · Chief Technology Officer · India
Ask whether the model was tested on the promised problem
My contribution to a board
I could help directors examine whether a model-based product claim answers the problem the customer actually faces. An evaluation may use information unavailable at issue time, an optimisation may trade away a supposed hard limit, or an average may remove the peak that matters. My experience includes approving the first of those errors, so I would bring a question about evidence rather than a claim of personal technical certainty. I would ask management to explain the input boundary, constraint ownership and resolution behind the proposed use, including the cases the product cannot yet support. Directors should understand the consequence without selecting algorithms or becoming a validation laboratory. I would first learn the receiving company’s business and assurance arrangements, because the right oversight question depends on the decisions its users are being invited to make.
Committee contribution
| Capacity | Committees |
|---|---|
| Ready to join | Technical-product and model-risk discussions · Research investment and validation oversight |
Capacity and preferences
- Time available
- 23 days per year
- Current directorships
- 0
- Sectors
- Energy-planning software · Decision-support products with consequential customer constraints
- Company type
- A software enterprise whose board expects product claims to state their evaluation conditions
- Company stage
- Moving a research result into a commercial product or reassessing model-based recommendations
The seat I am pursuing
I would consider a first non-executive contribution under an experienced chair who wants a clearer account of the evidence behind a technical product. Governance preparation and company-specific assessment must precede acceptance; presenting research to directors is not statutory service. I could contribute initially to product-risk, research-investment or validation discussions alongside established expertise, without offering to chair a statutory committee. The board should explain what skills it already has and why my operating experience would add a useful perspective. Management and qualified reviewers must retain implementation and assessment responsibility, while customers retain their practical decision authority. The contribution I seek is to help colleagues see when a model has answered a different or easier question from the one in the commercial promise, and to ensure that the unresolved answer remains part of the decision rather than disappear from the presentation.
Governance learning and readiness
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
No statutory appointment is held. Governance preparation and any applicable registration remain unfinished; no proficiency result or exemption is asserted.
- Preparing to question model-based product claims through collective oversight
- Learning appointment duties while keeping technical validation and customer decisions separately accountable
Board and committee exposure
Reported to a committee
Drevlqari Energy Software
Research review through the CTO
April 2018–March 2023
Reported withdrawal and reconstruction of the forecast evaluation; an executive research responsibility.
Judgement in practice
The evaluation had access to information from after the decision
Eighty-six of 120 historical forecast windows used weather observations unavailable at the supposed issue time. I would ask a board whether management has examined what the model was allowed to know before presenting its performance as relevant to a real user. The revised exercise retained twenty-eight windows outside the declared tolerance, and the broader release claim remained withheld. The correction was not just a new score; it was a more faithful problem definition. Directors can ask how independent challenge reaches the product decision and whether commercial expectations are making it harder to withdraw a claim. They should not choose a forecasting method, but they should understand whether the evidence represents the conditions in which the product is intended to be used.
The average removed the peak that made the plans different
Two illustrative profiles each contained 100 kWh over an hour, but one included a quarter-hour average demand of 200 kW while the other stayed at 100 kW. A hypothetical 150 kW interval limit distinguished them despite their equal hourly total. I would ask directors whether the product’s summary preserves the feature that makes the customer’s decision consequential. The bounded review still held one profile outside release after improvement. The board should understand that limitation and the declared use, without directing equipment operation or selecting a universal time interval for every customer. The useful oversight question is whether aggregation has quietly changed the problem the software claims to solve, and whether management has allowed that finding to change the release account.
My first year on a board
I would begin by following one model-based product claim from the research result through validation to the customer proposition. Through induction agreed with the chair, I would meet the technical, quality and commercial owners and ask how disagreements about suitability are resolved. I would examine one successful use and one unresolved scenario to understand what the release account leaves visible. The proposed twenty-three days must include preparation, meetings, learning and exceptional demands, with employer agreement and the actual calendar settled before acceptance. I would seek feedback on whether my questions improve collective judgement or turn the board into another technical review team. A useful first-year contribution might clarify the conditions under which one important product claim is valid, including what the organisation will do when later evidence challenges those conditions after a customer has begun relying on the product.
Conflicts and their management
My role provides access to research methods, customer planning material, software terms and investor discussions. I also hold a 0.25 percent beneficial interest through the employee vehicle. Those relationships must be disclosed alongside analytical partners, data suppliers and other commercial connections before protected material is exchanged for a prospective appointment. The receiving company needs its own eligibility and independence assessment, and my employer must agree the outside commitment. I would not carry private customer scenarios or proprietary models into another board’s discussion. Recusal may resolve a specific transaction, but repeated exclusion from the central product or research agenda could remove the reason for appointing me. Capacity needs a realistic account of release and validation demands. I would decline a role that expects privileged access, informal model certification or unpaid implementation responsibility in place of collective scrutiny supported by the company’s own accountable professionals.
My independence statement
Employment, 0.25% beneficial interest, investors, analytical partners and customer relationships require assessment for the proposed appointment. Technical experience does not establish independent status.