Keep the concession and the responsibility in the board account

I would bring to a board the question of what a product obliges the enterprise to keep doing after the initial transaction. In mobility equipment, the manufacturing decision connects with parts, configured assemblies and service relationships that have their own resources and professional responsibilities. A board needs a clear account of those commitments when it considers a new channel, a capital proposal or a distribution. My contribution would be to help connect the operating detail with the enterprise decision, while recognising that directors should not become a second factory-management team.

My own premature component approval is part of that perspective. In 2019 I treated a purchasing substitution as ready to proceed before its intended interface had technical acceptance. The resulting hold covered 2,400 sets, including 600 completed chairs still in our warehouse and 1,800 unfitted sets. Replacement and rework cost ₹3.4 crore over five weeks. A governance account should retain my approval in the sequence. It should not describe the specialist's later hold as the event that caused the business problem while leaving the earlier management assumption unexplained.

The boundary of authority has to be supported by the plan. Technical colleagues need a practical opportunity to complete their assessment before commercial commitments make the decision appear settled. Clinical selection, fitting and care remain with qualified professionals and cannot be supplied by my mechanical-engineering qualification or CEO title. At board level, I would ask how management knows that the relevant responsibilities have been exercised and what happens when an important conclusion remains unfinished. The purpose is to understand the control and its consequences, not to replace specialist judgement with a director's confidence.

Channel strategy creates another oversight question. Our proposed 4,000-chair opportunity included terms that would restrict existing service partners' spare-parts access. We declined it when the condition could not be resolved. The board account should preserve the ₹26 crore as an uncontracted forecast and ₹31 lakh as spent bid expense. A decision to retain access does not establish a quantified future benefit merely because its rationale is credible. Directors should understand the contractual choice and its cost before accepting a later narrative in which the company appears to have preserved everything without giving up an opportunity.

Capital proposals need an equally careful connection between demonstration and actual work. The 2,400-order sample behind our investment review contained 1,440 standard and 960 configured orders. The chosen ₹4.2 crore fixtures and training programme differed from the original ₹12 crore automation proposal. The board could prefer the second scope without calling the price difference a saving or assuming programme completion proved every expected result. I would encourage a record that makes the chosen capability, remaining work and unresolved benefits visible enough to revisit when circumstances change.

Ownership does not remove the need for this precision. I hold 6% of Zavqumi within employee shareholders' combined 65%, and I serve as its executive director. When a proposed dividend moved from ₹4.8 crore to ₹1.2 crore, my personal return was affected. The separate ₹3.6 crore parts working-capital funding needed a financial explanation and the distribution needed its applicable approvals. A lower payment was not new profit. I wanted the board and shareholders to be able to question the use of cash without being asked to accept a broad appeal to shared purpose in place of the analysis.

For an outside appointment, those ownership and commercial relationships would require qualified review before confidential information was shared. Independence and eligibility are specific to the proposed company and the applicable requirements. IICA registration in August 2026 is part of this fictional preparation; the assessment remains unfinished and no exemption is claimed. My executive board experience does not establish readiness to chair another company's committee. Twenty-two provisional days would need to include induction, preparation, meetings, travel and exceptional demands alongside the CEO role.

I would seek a board that expects directors to learn the whole enterprise and challenge the assumptions within their own experience. My manufacturing cases offer useful questions, but another company may have different economics, obligations and appropriate choices. Collective oversight is stronger when those differences are understood rather than forced into a familiar story. I would contribute most by helping management make its commitments and concessions explicit, listening to complementary expertise and maintaining the distinction between a reasoned decision, a completed action and a result the evidence actually supports.