top of page

Governance Signal Integrity Assessment

This assessment examines escalation architecture and information flow integrity

It does not measure sentiment or culture

Score questions on the following scale

1 - Not Present

2 - Informal / Inconsistent

3 - Partially Structured

4 - Structured but rarely tested

5 - Engineered and reviewed

Oversight Qualification

Your primary Governance Responsibility

Section A - Escalation Path Clarity
1. Escalation pathways are formally defined and documented
2. Escalation thresholds are based on defined criteria rather than individual judgement alone
3. There is clarity across management layers about when issues must be escalated versus resolved locally
4. The board or executive committee receives visibility into how often escalation pathways are activated.
5. Escalation responsibilities are explicitly defined across reporting layers, including who owns upward movement of risk.
Section B - Reporting Layer Integrity
6. Senior leadership receives reporting that includes unresolved concerns and minority viewpoints.
7. There is a mechanism to detect when reporting becomes sanitised or diluted across layers.
8. Escalated issues are tracked through to resolution without informal suppression.
9. Reporting formats allow explicit identification of uncertainty, dissent or incomplete information.
10. Governance reporting distinguishes between resolved issues and those that have been contained without structural resolution.
Section C – Dissent & Challenge Architecture
11. A formally recognised channel exists for challenging decisions without career penalty.
12. Instances of challenge are reviewed as governance signals rather than behavioural disruptions.
13. Leaders are evaluated in part on how they respond to escalation, not solely on outcomes.
14. The organisation monitors whether escalation activity declines in periods of heightened performance pressure.
15. There is evidence that escalation has proceeded even when it contradicted senior preference.
Section D – Decision Latency & Signal Loss
16. Oversight exists for how long material issues remain at intermediate layers before reaching senior decision-makers.
17. Near-miss events are analysed for escalation delay, not solely for operational error.
18. Exit data and grievance patterns are reviewed for evidence of suppressed or unaddressed risk concerns.
19. Escalation architecture has been stress-tested under simulated pressure within the last 24 months.
20. The board or executive committee has reviewed escalation architecture specifically, separate from general culture or engagement discussions.
bottom of page