My contribution to a board
I could help directors ask whether the commercial conclusion matches the event actually observed. The answer may depend on an unknown listing outcome, a changing group composition or the unit priced in a bundled agreement. My own sales-claim correction gives me experience of withdrawing an interpretation I had approved. I would begin with the receiving company’s research purpose, assurance process and customer decisions. The board should understand where the method owner can challenge an attractive headline and how the narrowed account reaches the reader. I could help directors distinguish a calculation from the inference attached to it without asking them to reproduce the analysis. That contribution would support collective scrutiny of research products alongside established financial, legal and governance skills. It would not make me the valuer of an individual vehicle or the authority for a customer’s transaction decision.
Judgement in practice
01A missing listing supplied an event but not its outcome
The selected thirty-six removals contained twelve confirmed transactions and twenty-four unknown outcomes. I would ask a board how management distinguishes what the source records from what the customer is invited to infer. The unknown portion should not be forced into a completed-sale or unsold category simply to make the account appear finished. Directors need to understand the consequence of the published statement and whether a method owner can challenge an approval already given by a senior executive. They should not decide the status of individual listings themselves. The useful oversight question concerns how an unsupported conclusion is corrected and explained while the valid source observation remains available. My own role in the mistaken approval would matter because a board should see accountability for the interpretation, rather than hear a story in which uncertainty is always someone else’s data problem.
02The comparison changed when the priced unit changed
The twelve-vehicle bundle had a combined price of ₹1.44 crore. Equal division produced a useful arithmetic amount, but not twelve observed achieved prices. I would ask directors whether a published benchmark explains its unit and the coverage consequences of excluding bundled deals. The selected account retained sixteen single-vehicle deals and disclosed two bundles separately. A narrower benchmark can be more understandable when the omitted activity remains visible elsewhere in the research account. Oversight should examine the decision process and commercial explanation without substituting directors for the method team. I could help a board ask whether a precise number has gained more authority than its source permits, and whether customers can distinguish an allocation used for a stated purpose from an observation that supports the comparison they think they are reading.
My first year on a board
I would follow one significant research claim from the board’s commercial discussion back to the source event and forward to the material a customer receives. Through the chair’s agreed process I would meet data, methods, product and commercial owners to understand where their responsibilities differ. I would examine a corrected account alongside a successful one, because the correction can reveal whether challenge changes publication in practice. Twenty-three proposed annual days must include preparation, learning and exceptional demands as well as meetings. I would ask the chair whether my questions improve the board’s understanding or draw it into approving individual analytical treatments. By the first-year review I would want a material discussion to identify the observation, comparison and conclusion more clearly, with the unknown portion visible. I would also ask whether customers received the narrower account in a form they could use, rather than merely a longer technical qualification.
Conflicts and their management
My role gives me access to private source arrangements, customer research questions, supplied deal evidence and publication plans. I would disclose employer, investor, data-provider, research-partner, customer and adviser relationships before receiving another enterprise’s protected material. Its own eligibility and independence assessment must address the actual appointment. Employer agreement and a realistic calendar would be necessary alongside further preparation. I would not use one company’s unpublished transaction evidence to strengthen another company’s commercial research. Occasional overlap might permit recusal, while recurring exclusion from the main research-product agenda could make a seat unsuitable. Capacity also has to allow for a significant correction in my continuing executive role. I would decline an arrangement that expected privileged data access, a favourable benchmark or an informal vehicle valuation from a director. The contribution should strengthen scrutiny through accountable executives and qualified methods, with confidential source relationships protected.
My independence statement
Employer, investor, data-provider, customer, research-partner and adviser connections require disclosure. I hold no personal equity, but that fact alone cannot establish independence for a receiving company.
Capacity and preferences
- Time available
- 23 days per year
- Current directorships
- 0
- Sectors
- Research and information enterprises · Businesses publishing transaction or market comparisons
- Company type
- A private information enterprise whose directors want commercial conclusions tested against the observations beneath them
- Company stage
- Expanding a research product or reconsidering how evidence is represented to customers
The seat I am pursuing
I would explore a first non-executive contribution with a chair who wants research conclusions to withstand questions about their evidence. My experience is executive presentation and reporting rather than statutory service. Preparation remains unfinished, and the prospective company would need to assess suitability in its own circumstances. I could contribute to research-product, data-quality or publication-risk discussions as a member alongside experienced governance colleagues, without claiming readiness to chair a statutory committee. The chair should explain which commercial inference directors find difficult to examine and whether management welcomes a method that can narrow a preferred claim. I could be useful where the unknown portion of an account can be discussed without embarrassment and a correction remains part of leadership responsibility. Management would continue to own publication decisions, and qualified specialists would retain the relevant methodological, financial and legal judgements.
Committee contribution
Chair and member readiness| Capacity | Committees |
|---|
| Ready to join | Research-product and data-quality oversight where constituted · Commercial-claim and publication-risk discussions |
|---|
Governance learning and readiness
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
Governance preparation and any registration relevant to a first appointment remain to be completed. No passed proficiency assessment or exemption forms part of this profile.
- Preparing to examine research conclusions through collective board oversight
- Learning how directors challenge publication risk while methods remain accountable to management
Board and committee exposure
Presented to the Board or a committee
Kershavi Vehicle Intelligence
Board research-product and publication-risk discussions
April 2021–present
Presents source, comparison and bundle-treatment decisions through the CEO without holding a statutory seat.
Reported to a committee
Kershavi Vehicle Intelligence
Selected publication-correction review through the research executive
April 2015–March 2021
Reported why removal records did not establish the completed sales stated in an approved account.