Regulated Financial Services Control Priorities Adviser

The mandate

The finance risk committee's standing question is which control weaknesses most threaten reliable regulatory and management reporting when remediation capacity is constrained. The adviser will challenge priorities and evidence, drawing on financial-control practice rather than issuing legal interpretations of prudential rules. The role does not own the regulatory reporting function.

Four days monthly cover selected reporting controls, a cross-owner challenge and committee attendance. Attendance is included. A control-priority question is acknowledged within two working days and receives a reasoned view within four once relevant records are available. Emergency filing support and continuous remediation management are not included in the retainer.

The regulated-reporting challenge term opens on 19 October 2026 for six months. Renewal requires the chair to identify the remaining source-control agenda and evidence that the initial advice improved actual prioritisation decisions. The adviser has no line authority over reporting teams, and carries no executive responsibility for filings or risk acceptance. Internal owners retain those obligations.

The sponsor provides authorised reporting reconciliations, control exceptions and approval ownership. Advice should trace the risk from source data through transformation and submission, distinguishing a weak reconciliation from a policy interpretation that needs the authorised specialist. Recommendations must identify a practical interim safeguard where final remediation cannot be completed immediately.

Concurrent advice is permitted outside competing or self-review relationships. Work for a reporting provider, regulator-facing adviser or assurance team over the same evidence creates a conflict requiring disclosure and potential recusal. Filing execution, formal prudential opinions and statutory assurance are excluded. The committee wants a finance director's technical challenge without confusing an advisory note with a management or regulatory conclusion.

What you will own

• Challenge control priorities by tracing the reporting consequence of each weakness, pressing owners to distinguish administrative delay from a source or transformation defect.
• Test reconciliation evidence against the actual reporting measure, advising where matching totals do not establish that classification or calculation is supportable.
• Shape interim safeguards with clear operating evidence and limits, preventing a planned remediation date from implying that current exposure has disappeared.
• Examine escalation boundaries between finance judgement and regulatory interpretation, identifying which question requires an authorised specialist rather than an advisory assumption.
• Press owners to retain unresolved exceptions across reporting periods, so repeated submission does not gradually convert an unsupported treatment into accepted practice.
• Review remediation sequencing for source and ownership dependencies, advising where separate workstreams cannot produce reliable outputs until a shared prerequisite is resolved.
• Record independent priorities and limitations in a committee note, leaving filings, policy approval and formal risk acceptance with authorised internal leaders.

Candidate qualifications

• Evidence financial-control or regulatory-reporting work in banking, NBFCs or analogous regulated services. Explain a reporting exposure you prioritised and the source evidence that made it more consequential than a visible administrative weakness.
• Demonstrate reconciliation and control judgement beyond matching aggregate totals. Candidates should describe a classification or transformation defect that remained hidden despite a superficially balanced schedule.
• Show practical understanding of the boundary between finance judgement and prudential interpretation. Provide a case escalated to the authorised specialist, including how the interim financial treatment and limitation were documented.
• Evidence independent advice with clear management and assurance boundaries. Describe a provider, reporting or self-review conflict and how confidentiality and recusal were handled without making the advice unusable.
• Be able to sustain four reserved days monthly and deliver source-linked recommendations under reporting pressure. Professional accounting capability must be evidenced. Candidates should show how an interim safeguard was tested, what risk remained and why neither a submitted return nor a completed policy document alone proved substantive control effectiveness. Explain how you prioritised a source defect when policy interpretation remained unresolved. The committee should see the action finance could take immediately, the specialist question still outstanding and the evidence needed before the reported measure could responsibly be treated as reliable.

Application

Applications for this mandate are received in one way only: through the India Board Terminal's application process. It is automated end to end. Your Executive Passport travels to the mandate holder in its confidential form, your answers to the three questions below are read before anything else in your file, and every stage that follows is recorded on your applications page.

There is no address to write to and no intermediary to call. The mandate holder reads what the Terminal delivers and nothing else, which is what keeps the process the same for every applicant and keeps your name out of it until you release it. Applications close on 8 October 2026. Mandate reference PCT-ADV-2026-IND-17.