When an AI mistake makes it all the way to the CEO's desk, the meeting about it is the easy part. Everyone agrees it was bad, someone takes the blame or the vendor does, and the week moves on. The company learns something only if one thing changes afterward in how that work runs, so the same mistake has a harder time happening twice.
Even at large companies, the rules usually stay as they were. Eight in ten executives at large companies in Europe and the Middle East told IBM that an AI-related incident reached their board or C-suite in the past year, and only 40% of those organizations said they changed their AI governance rules in response.
An escalation shows you where the decision rights stop
Nobody bats a thousand, anywhere, and especially in technology. Whether it is exposed data, a decision the AI got wrong or an agent that failed, something will go wrong at some point, and the question for an owner is what the company does next.
When a mistake has to climb to the top to get handled, I read it as a sign that nobody closer to the work knew they were allowed to make the call. That is a question about ownership and systems before it is a question about technology. A company built to hold can handle a problem like that without the owner stepping in, including the day a tool sends the wrong number to a customer.
Change the one step where the mistake got through
For a mid-market company, "governance framework" can sound like a binder nobody reads. After an incident it should mean something smaller and more useful: a change to the one workflow where the mistake got through. Three questions usually find it. Where did a person last look at this work before it went out? Who was allowed to stop it, and did they know that? What will that person check next time?
Then make the change. Put a review step where the mistake slipped past, write down who can stop the tool and when, or narrow what it is allowed to do without a person. About a third of the executives in IBM's study expect to need set thresholds by 2027 for when an AI agent has to hand a decision to a person.
Write the lesson down where the next person will find it
Every check on a tool teaches you what to trust next time, and an incident is the most expensive check you will ever get, so take the lesson out of it. A paragraph is enough: what happened, what the tool had been trusted to do, and what changed afterward.
The person who handled the incident will move on or forget the details, and the next person running that workflow inherits the tool without the lesson. If the fix lives only in someone's memory, the system has not changed.
If the tool did its job and someone skipped a step, fix the habit
Sometimes the AI did what it was set up to do. The output was flagged, or the review step was already there, and a person went around it. In that case, leave the tool's rules alone and talk with the team about why the step got skipped. Often the answer is that the step was too slow to keep, and that is worth hearing.
Ask what changed after the last one
Think of the last AI mistake someone brought to you, even a small one, and ask what is different now in how that work runs. If the answer is nothing, start there, before the next one finds the same gap.
If the mistake was a cost surprise, the post on an AI bill that spikes covers the meter side of this, and testing AI before you bet on it covers the decision before a rollout. Deciding who can make which call once AI sits inside a workflow is much of my work with owners and their teams. If an AI mistake has landed on your desk lately, send me a note and we can go through what to change.
Source: IBM study conducted by Censuswide among 3,221 executive management respondents at organizations with 1,000 or more employees in the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia and the UAE; data collected Sept 14 to 24, 2026; released Oct 15, 2026.
John Wyatt · John Wyatt's page · All posts · RSS