Send us a text

The AI Balance Sheet Liability Most AI investments are currently tracked as innovation assets, but without structural "plumbing," they rapidly become balance sheet liabilities. This briefing addresses why 90% of agentic projects failed in 2025 and how to move from "paving over potholes" to rebuilding the road for an AI-native world.

The Process-First Architecture To ensure an intelligence layer is defensible, fiduciaries must apply three non-negotiable filters:

Redesign over Automation: Fixing the workflow before the tool.
Inference Economics: Comparing daily run rates to initial deployment costs.
Data Integrity: Ensuring data is normalized and represents a single source of truth.

Even a perfect process fails if the board remains skeptical of the ROI numbers.
Watch the deep dive on why AI ROI is fake: https://youtu.be/jpILq7Pg5uc

Next Briefing: Disaster Recovery (DR) in the realm of ROI.


0:00 – The AI Balance Sheet Liability


0:53 – Authority Flash: 18 Years as a Global CIO


1:22 – Why Automation Fails on Top of Chaos


2:05 – The Process-First Architecture Framework


2:48 – Data Integrity: The Governance Mandate


3:50 – What "Normalized Data" Means for Leadership


4:46 – Making the Intelligence Layer Defensible


5:44 – Chaining the Chain: Why AI ROI is Fake

Send us a text

Most leadership teams are told that if they don’t invest millions in AI immediately, they will be left behind. But for many organizations, "AI" is currently nothing more than a marketing term—a "Google search on steroids" wrapped in urgency.

In this briefing, I break down the collision between technical reality and financial accountability. I explain why over 90% of AI initiatives fail to reach sustained production and provide the exact two-question decision filter that can save your organization hundreds of thousands in undisciplined spend.

What this briefing delivers:

The Authority Arc: Why leadership intelligence requires more than just technical hype.

Category Confusion: Defining LLMs vs. Agentic AI in boardroom terms.

The Trillion-Dollar Failure: A look at the 2025 data showing why trillions in spend are failing.

The Interrogation: The specific follow-up questions to ask your CIO to expose undisciplined thinking.

Fiduciary Discipline: How to let strategy lead technology to restore financial leverage.

Featured Resource:
For a deeper dive into these frameworks, my book "AI Clarity: A Straightforward Guide for Business Leaders" is available on Amazon (Link Below). It provides the full interrogation scripts for LLMs, AI agents, and agentic systems.

Next in the Series: Stay tuned for the next briefing on Disaster Recovery (BCP), where we reveal why most organizations are not nearly as protected as they believe.

0:00 Why AI Assumptions are Wrong
1:30 The Authority Arc: From Helpdesk to Global CIO
3:45 Defining Artificial Intelligence in the Boardroom
5:10 What AI Actually Is: LLMs vs. Agents
6:30 The "Marketing Term" Trap: A Monitoring Case Study
8:15 The Gemini Ad and the Inevitability Narrative
9:25 The Trillion-Dollar Failure: Why AI Data Matters
10:45 The Truth About AI Job Losses
12:20 The Two-Question Decision Filter
14:00 The Interrogation: How to Challenge AI Proposals
15:05 AI Clarity: Mental Models for Executives
16:15 How Strategy Leads Technology
17:35 Next Briefing: The Disaster Recovery Gap

Send us a text

Boards do not approve confidence. They approve understanding.

This briefing explains why confident executives lose authority in the boardroom, and what directors are actually testing when they push back on proposals.

Using a real CFO case and a one-slide decision framework, this video shows how boards evaluate risk, downside ownership, and financial consequences before approving major technology and capital decisions.

This is for CEOs, CFOs, and COOs who are responsible for the decision, the risk, and the explanation.

Send us a text

CIO and CFO alignment does not break because of personalities or communication styles. It breaks because your governance structure never forces the real trade-offs to be defined. When one leader optimizes for capability and the other for capital, "alignment" becomes nothing more than expensive theater.

In this briefing, I explain why alignment is not agreement—it is a structure. I break down the three questions that must be forced before any material technology spend to restore capital discipline and board confidence.

What this briefing delivers:

The Translation Problem: Why the CIO must learn the language of business economics instead of expecting the business to learn technical jargon.

The Shadow IT Vacuum: How leadership delays of 6 months force the business to stop waiting and start signing unauthorized SAS contracts.

The Three-Question Framework: What are we optimizing? What downside are we accepting? And who owns the outcome financially?

Case Study: How a financial services firm cleared an 18-month backlog in 90 days by shifting from "business cases" to "explicit trade-offs".

Chapters: 0:00 A Governance Failure, Not a Personality Problem 1:12 Authority Flash: 18 Years in the Boardroom 1:53 Why Alignment Fails 4:08 The Real Cost of "Alignment Theater" 5:10 The CIO Translation Problem 7:09 Alignment is a Structure, Not an Agreement 8:52 Case Study: Reframing the Backlog 11:02 How Governance Restores Clarity 11:37 Next: Why Board Confidence Collapses

Next in the Series: Stay tuned for the final briefing in this ROI series, where I explain why board confidence collapses even when every function is performing well.

Send us a text

Boards are not confused by IT metrics. They are unconvinced by what those metrics fail to explain.
In this briefing, I break down why clean dashboards, green uptime, and precise financial tracking still fail to earn trust, and why pushback from directors is not skepticism but a signal that the numbers are disconnected from how the business actually operates.

This is not an IT execution problem. It is a governance and translation failure between IT activity, financial cost, and business impact.

What this video covers
• Why boards reject accurate numbers that lack business causality
• The disconnect between IT dashboards, financial statements, and board decisions
• The three traits trusted board-level numbers always share
• Why more data increases internal confidence but reduces board confidence
• A real manufacturing board case where trust returned without improving performance

The core insight
Boards do not fund platforms or reports. They fund decisions, predictability, and accountable outcomes. When numbers fail to explain what changed in the business, credibility erodes quietly, meeting by meeting.

Who this is for
CEOs, CFOs, COOs, private equity operating partners, and business leaders who are tired of defending technology spend that looks right on paper but fails in the boardroom.

01uOFlHxd8XsKkZF7Z6T

Send us a text

Most companies approve technology investments that look sound on paper, track cleanly in finance, and deliver exactly what was promised, yet still fail when the board asks a single question.

What did we get for the money.

This is not an execution problem.
It is an IT governance failure.

In this briefing, former Global CIO Jayson Hahn explains why IT ROI collapses in the boardroom, even when projects are delivered on time and on budget. You will see how misaligned definitions of success between executives quietly break the capital story, and why CFOs are left defending value that was never economically defined.

This episode covers:

• Why IT ROI fails in translation, not execution
• The difference between delivery metrics and economic outcomes
• Why ROI must be agreed before capital moves, not after
• The three questions boards expect answered, and why most organizations cannot answer them
• How governance restores capital discipline and board confidence

This is for business leaders who are tired of approving technology spend they cannot clearly defend in a board meeting, an audit, or a strategic review.

Send us a text

Most CFOs approve technology investments that look sound on paper, align with leadership expectations, and receive board approval, only to find themselves defending outcomes they never controlled. When strategy decks and financial results diverge, boards do not blame systems or process. They look to finance.

This is not an execution failure. It is an IT governance failure.

What the Podcast delivers

In this briefing, former Global CIO Jayson Hahn explains why IT governance consistently fails CFOs, how misaligned definitions of success between CEOs, CIOs, and finance create hidden exposure, and why boards uncover these gaps months after capital is committed.

You will hear:

Why alignment is not governance

How capital moves before economic logic is agreed

The three questions boards expect CFOs to answer, and why most governance models fail to provide them

A practical framework CFOs can use to regain control, credibility, and board confidence

This Podcast introduces the Command, Control, Confidence governance framework, designed to ensure capital decisions are tied to business outcomes, ownership, and board-level metrics before dollars move.

If you want clarity before your next board conversation, subscribe for the next briefing, where we break down how boards evaluate IT return, and the three numbers CFOs must have ready.