The 10 dimensions are not independent scoring lanes. They cluster into five committee accountability zones, reflecting how governance actually works at the board level.
Committee zones
| Committee zone | Dimensions | Zone weight | Governance focus |
|---|
| Full Board | D1: Leadership and Accountability | 15% | AI governance at the highest level |
| Risk Committee | D2: AI Safety, D4: Data Ethics, D9: Cybersecurity | 30% | Safety, data, and security resilience |
| Audit Committee | D3: Transparency, D8: Regulatory, D10: Third-Party | 25% | Disclosure, compliance, and vendor governance |
| Compensation/HR | D6: Fairness, D7: Workforce/Societal | 15% | Bias mitigation and workforce impact |
| Nominating/Governance | D5: Governance Infrastructure | 15% | Policies, architecture, and board composition |
Why committee clustering matters
A company scoring well on AI Safety (D2) and Data Ethics (D4) but poorly on Cybersecurity (D9) has a Risk Committee problem, not just a dimension problem.
Traditional governance assessments score dimensions independently. Alpha’s Committee Accountability Mapping reveals structural patterns that dimension-level analysis misses.
Zone coherence signal
High variance between dimensions within the same zone flags a structural governance gap.
Example: If Transparency (D3) scores 80 but Regulatory Compliance (D8) scores 40, the Audit Committee is not providing coherent oversight. The company is disclosing well but not complying well, or vice versa. This variance is flagged in the rating report.
Committee zone score
The average of dimension scores within the zone, weighted by profile. Reported alongside individual dimension scores in every rating.
Committee Accountability Mapping is designed for directors who already sit on these committees. When an Audit Committee chair reads an Alpha rating, they can immediately identify whether their committee’s governance dimensions are coherent or fragmented.
