AI Governance Executive Search is a mandate for the bearer of Responsible-AI and governance risk — in PE portfolio and operating companies. Not a certificate. Not an officer job board. Not an Art. 4 literacy clone.
Christian Pobbig and Beyond Chiefs work from Hamburg on AI Executive Search in DACH. This page is the governance/risk cut: who owns the yes when model, vendor, use case, or kill rights become contested. PE portfolio leadership is another spoke; supervisory-board oversight a third. This page does not steal their H1.
Neither the AI Act nor Art. 4 requires an AI Governance Officer or a CAIO. The Commission is clear: literacy does not create an officer duty. Inventing an appointment duty here sells compliance theatre.
Art. 14 (human oversight for high-risk) and organ-level care remain soft context: someone must be able to carry the yes. That is not a catalogue product called “Governance Officer.” Literacy proof stays on the Art. 4 spoke — one boundary sentence is enough.
Governance risk means standards, escalation, vendor and model decisions, kill rights, and documentation toward board and auditors. The bearer is not the certificate buyer and not the external auditor. He or she is the name CEO, PE operating partner, or management board give when it gets tight.
Titles may vary — under CAIO, CRO, Legal, Risk, or as a dedicated seat. How often the market writes “Chief AI Governance Officer” remains unknown. Architecture matters, not the vacancy post.
In portcos and operating companies the question is identical: is ownership of Responsible-AI / governance risk named? If not, no framework PDF helps. Then you need retained search — seat, mandate, judgment.
This spoke is not a due-diligence essay and not a portfolio-leadership clone. It is the moment governance risk needs a bearer.
Buyers are CEO, management board, PE partner / operating partner, CHRO — not candidates, not certificate shoppers. What they buy: the AI Executive Search mandate for the lasting bearer of the AI decision.
