King V readiness: five questions boards should be able to answer now
The shift is not about producing another governance document. It is about making decision rights, oversight and evidence visible in practice.
Can we trace accountability from the board to the control owner?
A strong governance structure makes responsibility visible. Committee terms, delegations, management forums and control ownership should tell the same story. Where they do not, escalation slows and risk falls between roles.
Start with a material decision and trace who recommends, approves, executes, monitors and reports. The gaps become clearer than they do in an isolated document review.
Does assurance follow the risk, or last year’s calendar?
The assurance plan should change when strategy, technology, suppliers or regulation change. Audit committees need a combined view of assurance coverage, duplication and blind spots across management, compliance, risk and internal audit.
Can the board see movement, not only a risk rating?
A red or amber status is not enough. Useful reporting explains what changed, why it changed, which control or assumption moved and what decision is required. Trend and evidence matter more than decorative dashboards.
Are technology and third parties inside the governance model?
Critical operations increasingly depend on platforms, data and external providers. Decision rights, incident thresholds, performance evidence and exit arrangements must extend beyond the legal entity.
What evidence would withstand challenge?
Minutes, reports and policies should reflect real oversight rather than retrospective compliance. A readiness review should test a small number of material decisions end to end and examine whether the record supports the conclusion reached.