Lead AI governance, fractional

The work

Builds the policies, records and controls that let an organisation show how its AI is run.

Fractional means you carry a decision, not a backlog. Hirers who want a pair of hands are pointed at a project instead.

The bar

You have owned delivery and you have set the standard others worked to, including saying no to work that was already funded.

Why this one is hard to judge. A framework can be recited. Having actually taken an organisation through an audit is a different thing entirely.

What we ask to see

• A policy or standard you wrote that is actually enforced, not just published
• Something you stopped, and what it cost you internally to stop it
• A named referee who was on the other side of that decision

One solid item beats five vague ones. A referee we can actually call beats a link to a landing page.

What gets an application declined

• The only evidence offered is a certification, a course, or a job title
• Every piece of evidence is under an NDA and no sanitised version or referee is offered
• The work described is entirely a demonstration, a proof of concept, or a hackathon
• More than six disciplines are claimed, which we read as a signal that none has been assessed

If we decline you, the reason is written down and sent to you. The software refuses a decline without one.

What it pays

Nothing is published for this discipline in the UK advertised market, so there is no figure to give you and we are not going to invent one.

No published rate or salary for AI governance as a title. The source returns governance roles that are IT governance, which is a different job. The work is being bought, but under titles borrowed from compliance and legal, so it does not appear in the data at all.