Disaster Recovery Journal Summer 2026

to slow down and verify unusual direc tives. Continuous monitoring of narra tive threats, supported by regular upward reporting, helps ensure synthetic-media risks remain visible at the board level. Since executive identity itself has become an attack surface, strong gov ernance increasingly includes digital footprint controls, identity authentication measures, and monitoring for synthetic misuse of leadership likenesses. Boards are also strengthening oversight of AI tools used internally by requiring model audits and insisting on human review to prevent overreliance on automated judg ments. Governance further extends to third parties through contractual require ments to address breach and imperson ation reporting, as well as assessments of vendor readiness. Most organizations already possess adequate cybersecurity technology. The persistent weaknesses tend to involve authority structures, escalation routes, and verification procedures. Under pres sure, employees frequently act on instinct, responding to familiar voices or urgent requests. AI impersonation amplifies these vulnerabilities by exploiting human trust and established communication habits. Our experience in corporate and pri vate wealth settings repeatedly reveals the same governance gaps. Unencrypted channels, outdated off-boarding pro cesses, and inconsistent verification prac tices remain common exposures. Even sophisticated organizations struggle to enforce cyber hygiene across dispersed teams, subsidiaries, and third parties. Meanwhile, cultural factors such as tra ditions of discretion, decentralized com munication, or reliance on long-tenured staff can further undermine resilience. These breakdowns are seldom technical in nature, but almost always reflect insuf ficient mandates governing verification authority, escalation rights, and policy enforcement. At the management level, some firms are addressing this by establishing infor mation risk steering groups that include Where AI Resilience Fails: Not in Technology, but in Governance

cybersecurity, legal, communications, HR, and business continuity leaders. These groups preapprove verification protocols and rehearse rapid authentication pro cedures. Others are appointing a single executive responsible for information ver ification during crises, with the authority to validate or halt critical directives. Many organizations are now embedding out of-band verification requirements, docu mented chains of authority, and regular misinformation drills within their broader risk management programs. From Awareness to Enforceable Governance Training remains important, but it cannot counter AI-enabled deception on its own. Organizations need governance architectures that clearly define, enforce, and routinely test decision making, escala tion pathways, incident response, and veri fication processes. Cultural reinforcement is also essential, ensuring employees feel permitted to question unexpected instruc tions and escalate concerns even when circumstances seem urgent. Detection tools can support these processes, but they cannot replace them. Organizations that run regular cross-functional exercises con sistently demonstrate quicker containment and recovery when incidents occur. Why Boards Must Own AI Governance Regulatory and insurance require ments are constantly evolving. Cyber related insurance premiums are rising, and insurers increasingly require evidence of AI-specific safeguards, tested incident response plans, and well-documented ver ification controls. Regulators now expect organizations to demonstrate not only technical preparedness but also gover nance practices capable of sustaining legal scrutiny. In this environment, AI resilience has become inseparable from enterprise risk, operational continuity, and reputational durability. Boards must therefore treat AI governance as a core responsibility. Integrating AI risk into the agendas of risk or audit committees, strengthening verifi cation requirements for sensitive actions, and overseeing the governance of AI tools

within the enterprise are becoming essen tial elements of responsible oversight. Boards must also ensure organizational structures support resilience through clear authority, empowered crisis decision making, and regular tests of these systems under realistic conditions. The Imperative for Business Continuity and Risk Leaders For business continuity and risk profes sionals, the path forward lies in reframing AI-driven threats as systemic risks which can disrupt essential business functions rather than as narrow technical issues. Boards engage most effectively when threats are expressed in terms of opera tional continuity, fiduciary exposure, regu latory liability, reputation, and enterprise valuation. Every one of these areas is now affected by AI-enabled manipulation across communications, treasury opera tions, payroll, supply chain processes, and other core functions. This is fundamentally a governance challenge that requires governance solu tions. Organizations whose boards and leadership teams adopt proactive over sight will be far better positioned to pre serve stability as threats evolve. Those that fail to modernize their structures may find themselves facing crises in which nei ther information, nor identity, nor internal directives can be trusted. For business continuity and risk lead ers, this moment represents a critical opportunity. Their roles already span oper ational integrity, crisis decision making, and enterprise risk, which are precisely the domains targeted by AI-driven threats. They are uniquely positioned to guide their organizations by designing, testing, and embedding AI resilience practices that support both present needs and future challenges. v

Ghonche Alavi, CDFE, is a trusted informa tion and network security advisor and ethical hacker who founded and leads Crisis24’s cyber practice. With deep expertise serving high net worth individuals and family offices,

she provides comprehensive cyber security solutions spanning OSINT and digital investigations, cyber incident management, and cyber resilience consultancy.

12 DISASTER RECOVERY JOURNAL | SUMMER 2026