Ocean Digital-Twin AI Board Adviser

The mandate

The board has not resolved whether its ocean digital twin is primarily a maintenance decision aid, a vessel-and-weather planning control, or a service to offer asset owners. Demonstrations combine turbine telemetry, subsea condition, metocean forecasts and simulated failures, but papers do not distinguish observed state, model inference and scenario assumption when assigning avoided downtime or safe access value.

The adviser will reserve three days monthly for a twin-evidence review, a chair or executive challenge session, and preparation or individual interviews. Four Asset and Technology Committee meetings are included; an urgent view on a maintenance deferral or customer proposition receives acknowledgement within one business day and a written response within three, without transferring operational accountability.

The eight-month term closes after the committee decides the next digital-twin investment and customer boundary. The chair may ask the board to renew the appointment once for up to four months if a named insurance, class or anchor-customer question remains unresolved, but delayed model engineering is not a basis for continuation.

This adviser holds no line authority, board vote or executive responsibility for vessel dispatch, technician safety, turbine release, maintenance deferral, customer claims, model deployment or capital. Marine and asset executives retain every operational decision; advice must state the evidence and uncertainty considered so accountable leaders can accept, narrow or reject it explicitly.

Other maritime and renewable-energy work is permitted after disclosure. A role with a competing operator, material interest in a shortlisted digital-twin or weather provider, contingent fee from an insurer, or confidential access to an asset owner negotiating with the group creates a conflict requiring paper restrictions, recusal or termination.

Why the board wants this voice

Directors understand asset finance and offshore operations, while management understands the current twin, but nobody in the room has governed AI-derived condition and weather evidence through live maintenance choices. The present investment case rewards richer simulation without identifying which decisions measurably improve. The committee wants an independent operator who can expose brittle certainty and keep commercial ambition inside operational proof.

What you will own

• Press management to name each decision the twin informs, its accountable owner, required lead time, safe alternative and consequence of a wrong prediction.
• Test data lineage across turbine, subsea, vessel, weather and maintenance sources, highlighting latency, missingness and ownership that undermine operational use.
• Challenge predictive claims through back-testing, prospective shadow decisions, rare-event coverage and calibration under changing asset and metocean conditions.
• Shape evidence gates separating visualisation, decision support, constrained recommendation and any proposed closed-loop action affecting offshore work.
• Probe the vessel-planning case for forecast uncertainty, port constraints, technician exposure, charter economics and human override under deteriorating conditions.
• Evaluate customer and insurance propositions for liability allocation, explanation rights, data access, model change and performance claims the evidence can sustain.
• Frame the final committee record with approved uses, prohibited representations, residual uncertainty, expiring assumptions and evidence required before wider authority.

Candidate qualifications

• Governed a digital twin, predictive-maintenance or AI asset-intelligence system in offshore wind, maritime energy or similarly exposed infrastructure.
• Connected metocean and equipment predictions to real maintenance or vessel decisions and measured realised availability, cost and safety consequences.
• Challenged a convincing simulation whose data, calibration or operating boundary did not support deployment at sea.
• Structured customer, insurer or asset-owner terms for an analytical product where model uncertainty and operational accountability needed explicit separation.
• Presented condition-based maintenance evidence to a board or investment committee without converting probabilistic output into guaranteed avoided downtime.
• Managed conflicts among technology providers, vessel interests, service contractors and asset owners while preserving independent advice.

Non-negotiables

• Can attend all four Lisbon committee meetings and both designated operational or customer visits during the eight-month term.
• Will disclose offshore holdings, insurer work, asset-owner mandates and relationships with twin, weather, vessel or turbine-service providers.
• Accepts that marine officers and asset executives retain dispatch, access and maintenance authority regardless of model confidence.
• Has used AI-derived evidence in live offshore decisions; generic digital-twin strategy or visualisation delivery does not meet the requirement.

1. 49 words maximum. Describe one offshore decision changed by a digital-twin prediction and the field evidence that proved or disproved its value.
2. 49 words maximum. Which current operator, insurer, owner, vessel or technology relationship could constrain your independence here?
3. 49 words maximum. Confirm the Lisbon cadence and name the uncertainty that would prevent a twin from guiding maintenance deferral.