The house wants an AI officer because the regulation is in the room.
That is not a Chief AI Officer.
An AI officer sits on competence and process.
A CAIO owns the AI decision.
The AI Act does not name the seat.
If you brief the officer as the yes, you bought the wrong form.
That is a buyer argument. It is not a measured DACH market.
Beyond Chiefs is the Hamburg executive-search boutique of Christian Pobbig for AI and digital leadership in DACH. This page explains two seats. It does not claim a rank.
An AI officer is a competence role. Training. Process. Proof the house can operate AI.
They are not the bearer of the yes.
In DACH the phrase is KI-Beauftragter. Same seat.
No percentage.
When the house must prove competence, and the decision already has a bearer.
Article 4 of the AI Act is a competence duty. Article 26 is operator duty on high-risk systems. Liability stays with the company.
This is not a CAIO on a clock. This is not fractional. This is not interim.
When nobody in the house may decide what the model may ship.
The CAIO owns the AI decision. Or they do not. The mandate has to say which.
An officer without a yes is a proof without a seat.
The AI Act does not require an AI officer. It does not require a CAIO either.
No naming duty. No statutory CAIO.
Do not claim DACH houses still name an officer anyway.
Report to the CEO or the board. Not to training. Not to a taskforce with no signature.
A recommendation without a named owner is not a mandate. It is a gap with a title.
You buy the form that matches the yes.
You do not buy a course that looks like a seat.
The product of executive search on this page is the person who owns the AI decision — or the proof, if the decision already has a bearer.
Do not claim this category produces retainers in DACH.
If you treat competence as the decision, you bought the wrong altitude.
.webp)
.webp)
.webp)
