Where assurance activity exists
Catalogues controls, providers and lines of defence, often organised around functions and existing processes.
The assurance problem
More assurance does not always create more confidence.
Boards can receive extensive maps, reports and audit activity yet still lack a clear answer to the question that matters: are we sufficiently assured about the decisions, dependencies and outcomes most critical to strategy?
AGR starts with the board’s need for confidence, then designs proportionate assurance around the evidence and uncertainty that genuinely matter.
A different starting point
Beyond conventional assurance mapping.
What the board needs confidence about
Starts with strategic outcomes and board questions, tests the strength of evidence and makes gaps, duplication and uncertainty decision-relevant.
AGR method
Assurance designed from the board backwards.
The work connects strategy, risk, evidence and oversight in a single board-centred view.
Identify the strategic outcomes, commitments and dependencies requiring confidence.
Define what the board needs to know, challenge and decide.
Assess evidence quality, independence, coverage, timeliness and blind spots.
Agree proportionate assurance, ownership, reporting and improvement priorities.
Board outputs
Confidence made visible.
Strategic assurance view
A concise view of confidence against the outcomes that matter most.
Evidence assessment
Clear judgement on the quality, independence and timeliness of available evidence.
Gap and duplication priorities
Focused actions where assurance is absent, weak, excessive or poorly aligned.
Board assurance agenda
Practical questions, reporting expectations and a forward programme of oversight.