Ayesha Neralqvi · Chief Data Officer · India
I would help a board examine the evidence supporting a data-dependent business claim. A coverage number, quality score or growth comparison can be accurate within a narrow definition and still be interpreted more broadly. My experience is in finding that difference and making the consequence visible before publication or investment. I would bring the perspective alongside directors with commercial, legal and financial expertise, rather than treat the data function as the final authority on every question. I have presented to my employer's board as an executive but have never held a director appointment. An initial contribution would therefore include learning how the proposed company governs its products and how its board obtains specialist assurance. I would want my questions to improve collective judgement about what the evidence establishes, not create a parallel review team. Directors should understand the important limitations while management remains responsible for the detailed research and release process.
| Capacity | Committees |
|---|---|
| Ready to join | Risk or product-governance committee where data evidence is a material part of its remit |
I would consider a first appointment at an information or professional-services business whose board needs a practical understanding of evidence behind its products. An experienced chair and access to qualified legal, financial and technical advice would be important. I would initially seek committee-member responsibility where my experience fits, not claim immediate readiness to chair. The nomination process should explain why this perspective is needed and what learning the company expects from a new director. I have no current directorships and would address the preparation relevant to the proposed seat before appointment. The role should not be a route to obtain research data, clients or source contracts from my employer. My intended contribution is to help directors distinguish an appealing analytical claim from the evidence that supports it, while respecting management's responsibility to design and operate the product.
Presented to the Board or a committee
Board reviews of data-dependent products and source arrangements
April 2023–present
Attend by invitation as CDO to explain material data-method and publication questions; no director or committee-member position.
The source review reduced the proposed external product from 8,400 to 6,100 companies because three of eight arrangements did not support the intended distribution. The source material existed internally, but availability was not the same as permission for that output. In a board discussion, I would ask whether management has identified the assumptions that connect its proposed product to the rights and evidence behind it. Qualified legal advice should inform that question; a director should not substitute personal interpretation of a source agreement. I would also ask what the narrower release costs commercially and what evidence would justify expansion later. The board needs an intelligible decision about scope, timing and unresolved conditions. It should not accept a broad promise simply because the prototype can display the source material, nor assume that every uncertain source requires abandoning the entire product. The judgement concerns the particular output and its assessed conditions.
The text-label review found disagreement on 74 of 240 passages because researchers were not consistently answering the same question. Separating attribution and substantive classification reduced disagreement in a fresh sample, while some cases remained unresolved. As a director, I would ask what a reported quality score measures and whether the evaluation includes examples that expose ambiguity. A high score on easy cases may say little about the decisions that matter most to clients. I would want management to explain how unresolved evidence is handled and what consequence an error could have, without asking the board to adjudicate individual passages. The useful oversight is to understand the method's fitness for the product claim and the accountability for correcting it. An honest unresolved category can be more informative than a forced answer that makes a dashboard look complete while concealing the limits of the evidence.
I would begin with the company's products and customers before its technical architecture. With the chair and chief executive, I would agree visits and discussions that show how a source becomes a commercial claim and how a client can challenge it. Research, product, legal and operating leaders would each have a different part of that account. I would review existing assurance and correction records rather than immediately ask for a new quality dashboard. A useful first-year contribution could be a clearer board discussion of one material claim, including the population, permissions and uncertainty that affect its interpretation. I would seek feedback if my questions became too technical or sounded like instructions to researchers. Eighteen days is a proposed annual allowance including preparation and induction, subject to employer consent and the actual calendar. Exceptional incidents or transactions would require a separate conversation about the time and expertise I could responsibly provide.
Our company obtains information from source providers and supplies research to corporate financial teams. A prospective board could have relationships with either group, or could be considering a product that competes with ours. I would identify those connections before receiving confidential papers and obtain appropriate advice about any necessary exclusions. I would not transfer licensed material, client research questions or internal methodology from Dalqeri into another organisation. A limited conflict might be manageable, but recurring exclusion from core product decisions could make the seat unsuitable. I would also avoid combining a board appointment with an informal promise to certify the company's data or advise its clients. Applicable independence and committee requirements would be assessed for the specific company. I have not started IICA registration, so relevant preparation remains unfinished. Any later change in my employment, financial interests or source relationships would require updated disclosure rather than reliance on an earlier assessment.
Employment, source-provider relationships and personal interests would be disclosed for the proposed company's independence assessment. Expertise in data does not settle that assessment.
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
I have not begun IICA databank registration. Preparation and any applicable proficiency requirements would need attention before a relevant appointment; no exemption is claimed.