Livestream-Commerce Integrity Board Adviser

The mandate

Livestream revenue is growing faster than the board’s ability to distinguish persuasive selling from unsupported product claims, merchant substitution and scripted scarcity. Creator takedowns are visible, but complaint recurrence, off-platform migration and fulfilment failure are fragmented across functions. The central board question is how to scale trusted creator commerce when the live format compresses claim, endorsement, price, purchase and audience pressure into minutes. Management presents creator reach, enforcement and refund metrics separately. The adviser will press for joined evidence connecting stream moments, products, merchants, orders, complaints, safety signals, repeat entities and economic incentives while distinguishing platform responsibility from regulatory and merchant duties.

The cadence is three days monthly: one evidence review, one chair or committee preparation and one management challenge or seller-operations immersion. Six committee sessions and four immersions across moderation, merchant review, complaint handling or fulfilment are included. A material product-safety or systemic evasion question receives a response within forty-eight hours. Live policy enforcement, merchant decisions, investigations and regulator engagement remain with authorised executives.

The term lasts eleven months through two major commerce campaigns and the annual risk review. One one-month extension may be approved for a scheduled committee conclusion if conflicts are refreshed. The adviser closes with an integrity-outcome framework, risk archetypes, decision history, unresolved evidence limitations and board questions for creator, merchant, product and category expansion. The committee chair decides whether management has embedded the challenge.

The adviser has no line authority, executive responsibility, moderation access, merchant decision, investigation command, legal privilege or board vote. Executives set commercial and integrity policy; qualified officers decide product safety, law and regulatory reporting. The adviser may challenge claim evidence, metric construction, escalation thresholds and incentives, but cannot suspend creators, remove products, freeze funds, direct investigators, determine illegality or communicate for the platform.

Current or recent interests involving platforms, creator agencies, multi-channel networks, merchants, brands, marketplaces, payment firms, fulfilment providers, advertising technology or complainant groups require disclosure. A role for an entity under committee review triggers recusal. Other non-conflicting work may continue within cadence. Compensation is independent of sales, creator acquisition, enforcement count, complaint reduction, valuation, campaign performance or regulatory outcome.

Why the board wants this voice

Management has strong commercial, policy and investigation leaders, but the live selling format creates a distinctive operating system of performance, trust and pressure. The committee wants someone who has seen controls fail between spoken claim and delivered product. Independent challenge should sharpen category gates and outcome evidence without turning the adviser into a shadow moderator or regulator.

What you will own

• Press management to connect stream claims, creator identity, merchant entity, product, order, complaint, refund and recurrence evidence.
• Test whether risk controls survive scripted scarcity, product substitution, affiliate networks and migration between accounts or channels.
• Challenge category expansion where moderation capability, product evidence, fulfilment signals or remedy capacity lag commercial volume.
• Examine creator and merchant incentives that reward speed, conceal recurrence or externalise complaint and safety costs.
• Shape board thresholds for enhanced review, campaign constraint, category pause, executive escalation and independent assurance.
• Maintain a conflict-aware record of evidence gaps, unanswered questions, management commitments and adviser dissent.
• Leave the committee an integrity-outcome framework that distinguishes activity, deterrence, buyer remedy and repeat harm.

Candidate qualifications

• Has governed trust, safety, marketplace integrity, consumer protection or regulated commerce at significant platform scale.
• Can evidence a decision changed after connecting live content, merchant, transaction and post-purchase outcome data.
• Understands creator ecosystems, merchant networks, product claims, advertising, payments, fulfilment, complaints and entity resolution.
• Has challenged growth executives while respecting legal, investigation, moderation and product-safety decision boundaries.
• Can distinguish enforcement throughput, seller deterrence, buyer remedy and sustained recurrence reduction.
• Is independent of material platforms, creator agencies, merchants, brands, payment firms and commerce service providers.

Non-negotiables

• Can attend six Shanghai committee sessions and four seller or integrity operating immersions.
• Will not direct moderation, suspend entities, determine legality, handle live investigations or speak for the platform.
• Brings direct platform-commerce integrity experience; general digital marketing or retail advisory is insufficient.
• Will disclose platform, creator, merchant, brand, payment, fulfilment and regulator-facing relationships before review.

1. 49 words maximum. Which livestream or social-commerce metric most seriously obscured repeat buyer harm?
2. 49 words maximum. What platform, creator, merchant, brand or service-provider interests require disclosure here?
3. 49 words maximum. When did you recommend slowing category growth because remedy capacity lagged sales?