The Alpha Governance Scale
Alpha uses a letter-grade scale modeled on credit ratings. Each grade represents a specific governance posture, not a relative ranking.
| Grade | Tier | Score range | What it means |
|---|
| AAA | Leaders | 93-100 | Best-in-category governance. Sets the standard others are measured against. Governance is embedded in strategy, stress-tested, and continuously improving. |
| AA | Leaders | 85-92 | Excellent governance across all dimensions. Minor gaps exist but are actively managed. Board demonstrates deep AI fluency. |
| A | Leaders | 78-84 | Strong governance with clear accountability structures. Some dimensions need development but trajectory is positive. |
| BBB | Governance-Ready | 70-77 | Adequate governance for current AI deployment. Meets baseline expectations but lacks depth in several dimensions. |
| BB | Governance-Ready | 62-69 | Developing governance that covers fundamentals. Gaps in specific dimensions are identifiable and material. |
| B | Developing | 54-61 | Early-stage governance. Policies exist but evidence of application is limited. Board AI fluency is low. |
| CCC | Developing | 46-53 | Minimal governance infrastructure. Significant gaps across multiple dimensions. |
| CC | Laggards | 38-45 | Governance failures are evident. Company faces material risk from governance gaps. |
| C | Laggards | 30-37 | Critical governance deficiencies. Immediate remediation required. |
| D | Disqualified | Below 30 | Governance disqualification. Integrity Screen failures or fundamental absence of governance infrastructure. |
| NR | Not Rated | — | No rating assigned. See reasons below. |
The Integrity Screen (Phase 3) can cap a company’s maximum achievable grade regardless of dimension scores. A company with strong dimension performance but critical integrity failures cannot achieve Leader-tier ratings.
Trajectory overlay
Every rated company receives a directional signal:
| Trajectory | Meaning |
|---|
| Advancing | Governance posture is strengthening. Evidence of new initiatives, increased board engagement, or improved disclosure. |
| Stable | Governance posture is consistent with prior period. No material changes in either direction. |
| Declining | Governance posture is weakening. Evidence of reduced investment, departures of key governance personnel, or emerging gaps. |
Watch status
Watch status is event-driven, not periodic:
| Watch | Trigger |
|---|
| Positive Watch | Announced governance initiative, key hire, or regulatory compliance achievement that may lead to upgrade. |
| Negative Watch | Governance incident, key departure, regulatory action, or disclosed vulnerability that may lead to downgrade. |
| None | No active watch signal. |
NR (Not Rated) reasons
A company may be Not Rated for six specific reasons:
- Coverage Not Initiated - company is in the rated universe but assessment has not begun.
- Insufficient Evidence - public disclosure is inadequate to form a rating opinion.
- Rating Withdrawn - previously rated company no longer meets rating criteria.
- Rating Suspended - rating temporarily suspended pending resolution of a material event.
- Entity Request - company requested its rating be removed.
- Conflict of Interest - Alpha has a relationship that would compromise independence.
Public score cap
Ratings based solely on public evidence are capped at BB+. Companies seeking higher ratings must provide internal evidence through the Alpha Governance Audit process. This ensures Leader-tier ratings reflect verified governance practices, not just well-crafted disclosures.
