Supervisory board and AI leadership are not a double role.
They are an interface.
Who owns the yes. Who oversees. Who staffs.
Three questions. One seat. No invented Pflicht.
Christian Pobbig and Beyond Chiefs work from Hamburg on AI Executive Search in DACH. This page is the interface — not a restage of Vorstand accountability HOLD and not an accountability or board-staffing clone.
Who owns the yes-call in the operating AI mandate — Vorstand and bearer, not the supervisory board as substitute CEO.
What proof the supervisory board accepts — dated, not slides.
When the supervisory board staffs and when it only oversees.
Soft frame: general management and oversight duties (§76 AktG / §43 GmbHG) — without inventing an AI or CAIO Pflicht.
Not `ki-verantwortlichkeit-vorstand` as a HOLD restage.
Not supervisory-board AI responsibility or board-accountability as spine.
Not “staff AI on the supervisory board” as a staffing clone.
No legal advice. No invented Pflicht.
One-line pointers are fine. The spine here: interface between seat and supervisory board.
Bearer and Vorstand own the operating yes.
The supervisory board oversees and staffs — it does not replace the seat.
Blur the line and you duplicate ownership and erase judgment.
The interface makes the line public in the mandate.
Because oversight without a seat bearer rubber-stamps slides.
Because staffing without yes-clarity hires the wrong bearer.
Because accountability language without a mandate invents Pflicht — and we do not.
Interface first. Then search.
If seat and supervisory board are seriously separated, retain the AI Executive Search mandate with a clear yes boundary.
If you are hunting Pflicht narratives, you are in the wrong place — and not search-ready.
No. Soft frame on management and oversight. No advice, no invented Pflicht.
It can carry the staffing decision. The operating yes stays with bearer and Vorstand.
No. Different spine. Here: interface seat ↔ supervisory board.
