Comparing AI officers means comparing seats.
Not title menus.
Not inventing a statutory duty.
Rights. Stop. Proof. The yes.
Without those axes the comparison is cosmetics, and the board debates labels instead of bearer load.
I run retained AI Executive Search mandates from Hamburg for DACH seats. This page compares seats. It invents no general CAIO duty and does not clone title-cut hubs.
Which yes-calls the seat owns, and which it deliberately does not.
What may be stopped without escalation theatre and without a silent line veto.
Which proof the board will accept, measurable, dated, not slides.
Who holds budget and the reporting line when the fight arrives.
Those are seat fields. Not a legal claim.
If you need 'duty,' you need counsel: not search prose. Search compares bearer capacity. Counsel tests law.
It does not claim a general statutory duty for a CAIO or AI officer.
It does not steal the H1 from responsible-AI-officer search.
It does not steal the H1 from CDO-versus-CAIO.
One-line pointers to title cuts are enough. The spine here is compare without inventing a duty.
Invent a duty to replace the comparison and you move the decision into theatre.
Because titles without rights look interchangeable.
Because two seats can share a name and carry different yes-load.
Because a buzzword comparison buys the wrong bearer, and burns the seat within months.
Because 'we need someone for AI' is not a seat field.
Compare bearer capacity: not labels and not an invented duty.
If the seat cut is real, retain the AI Executive Search mandate with clear seat fields.
If you invent a duty to replace the comparison, you are not searching yet.
### Is there a general CAIO duty?
This page claims none. Compare seats by rights, stop, and proof, legal questions belong with counsel.
### Is a title comparison enough?
No. Titles without seat fields are labels.
### Who is this for?
Board and CEO cutting seats: not candidates.
