Earnings Quality and Policy Consistency Adviser

The mandate

The standing question for this Adviser is whether reported performance reflects consistently applied accounting and transparent judgment, especially where classification, estimation or timing choices materially shape period-on-period interpretation. The appointment supplies the Audit Committee Chair with independent challenge. It is not an investigation, assurance engagement or alternative management review.

Two adviser days each week will support a monthly earnings-quality scan, a fortnightly discussion with designated accounting leadership and one scheduled committee session. The Adviser will examine anonymised movement analysis, selected judgment papers and policy application. Management must provide its own explanations and evidence; the Adviser will not prepare the close or rewrite committee materials.

The review will distinguish permitted accounting choice from inconsistent application, estimate change from error, and unusual economic activity from unusual presentation. Particular attention will be given to recurring non-recurring labels, classification shifts, reserve or provision movements, capitalisation judgments, cut-off patterns and post-close adjustments. The aim is to sharpen governance questions without implying a preferred earnings outcome.

The Adviser has no line authority, ledger approval, investigative power or assurance opinion. Management and the committee retain their duties. Where a matter suggests misconduct or formal investigation, it will be referred through the designated route and removed from advisory handling.

At six months, the Chair should have a repeatable quality lens, clearer trend indicators and documented dispositions for reviewed questions. The Adviser must declare current investments, recent assurance or transaction work, close relationships and other interests that could reasonably affect perceived independence.

What you will own

• Develop an earnings-quality lens covering recurring classification, estimate movement, policy consistency and late reporting intervention.
• Review selected period movements and identify explanations that remain unsupported, incomplete or inconsistent with prior treatment.
• Challenge use of exceptional labels and changes in presentation that alter comparability without changing underlying economics.
• Test whether estimate updates reflect new evidence, corrected error or an unstated shift in policy application.
• Provide the Chair with concise questions, contrary indicators and recommended governance follow-up.
• Track dispositions and determine whether recurring issues have been corrected, transparently accepted or merely reclassified.
• Refer potential misconduct or assurance matters to the proper authority rather than stretching the advisory remit.
• Preserve a neutral stance toward the direction of reported performance.

Candidate qualifications

• Demonstrate board-level review of earnings quality grounded in accounting evidence rather than valuation commentary.
• Describe a recurring or exceptional classification you challenged and the change in reporting or governance that followed.
• Show how you distinguished an estimate update from correction of an error or inconsistent policy.
• Evidence analysis of provision, capitalisation, cut-off or post-close patterns that exposed a deeper control issue.
• Explain how you advised a committee without implying assurance or taking over management’s responsibilities.
• Provide an instance where you referred a matter out because investigation or independence requirements exceeded advisory scope.
• Show a credible process for identifying and managing financial and professional conflicts.

Working terms and boundaries

• The six-month retainer covers two days weekly, fortnightly management dialogue and scheduled monthly committee attendance.
• Advisory access is selective and evidence-led; it does not constitute an audit, forensic review or full-ledger examination.
• Management retains all entries, explanations and representations; the committee retains oversight decisions.
• Unscheduled events require reprioritisation or a written fee amendment.
• Conflicts are cleared before financial periods, counterparties or confidential matters are identified.

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 7 October 2026. Mandate reference FNA-ADV-2026-MIL-35.