Model Validation Governance Adviser

The mandate

The Adviser will help board governance assess whether independent validation is targeting the right questions, expressing findings consistently and influencing model use before risk crystallises. This is oversight of validation governance, not outsourced validation of individual models. There is no line authority, model approval, finding closure or personnel-management responsibility.

Two days weekly will support a monthly portfolio review, fortnightly discussion during planning and one scheduled committee session. Management supplies validation plans, finding records, limitation decisions, quality reviews and resource evidence. The Adviser may sample case files to test the governance diagnosis, but will not issue replacement validation opinions.

Advice will examine independence, risk-based depth, reviewer competence, conceptual and implementation coverage, outcome analysis, finding severity, remediation ageing and use restriction. A completed validation may still be ineffective if it asked the wrong decision question or communicated residual risk so weakly that governance could not act.

The Adviser will test whether validation timing anticipates material change and decision use, rather than arriving after implementation has created operational dependence. Resource scarcity must be translated into explicit prioritisation and interim protection, not silent reduction in review depth.

The committee and executives retain all decisions. Observations will state evidence, alternative interpretation and recommended governance response. Disagreement with validation management will be recorded fairly; the Adviser cannot direct validators, approve models or close findings by advisory assertion.

By month seven, expected legacy is a sharper planning method, calibrated severity standard, clearer restriction criteria, quality-review protocol and committee disposition record. Current or recent work with model owners, validators, suppliers or assurance providers and relevant financial interests must be declared before confidential portfolios are named.

What you will own

• Assess whether validation planning follows model use, consequence, change, limitation and elapsed evidence rather than calendar habit.
• Review independence and skill assignment for conflicts, self-review risk and methodological complexity.
• Challenge validation scope where conceptual, implementation, data, outcome or use questions are omitted.
• Test finding severity for consistency with decision consequence and credible compensating controls.
• Examine remediation extensions and determine whether model use remains supportable during delay.
• Improve committee reporting so residual risk, uncertainty and required decision are explicit.
• Recommend targeted quality review or independent work when advisory sampling reveals systemic concern.
• Decline individual model opinions, finding closure, line management and approval requests.

Candidate qualifications

• Demonstrate executive oversight of independent model validation across multiple method families.
• Describe a completed validation that missed the decision risk because its scope was technically narrow.
• Show how you recalibrated finding severity or use restrictions using consequence evidence.
• Evidence independence analysis where organisational separation alone did not prevent self-review.
• Explain how committee reporting changed action on overdue or limited validation.
• Provide an example of advising governance without supplanting the chief validator.
• Identify relationships that would compromise neutral review of validation governance.

Working terms and boundaries

• The seven-month retainer covers two days weekly, planning dialogue and scheduled monthly committee attendance.
• There is no line authority, validation opinion, model approval, finding closure or management responsibility.
• Management owns validation plans, conclusions and remediation; the Adviser supplies governance challenge.
• Unscheduled case or committee work requires reprioritisation or a signed retainer amendment.
• Conflicts are cleared before model owners, validators, suppliers or portfolios are disclosed.

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 11 October 2026. Mandate reference QNT-ADV-2026-BRU-23.