---
date: 2026-06-22
topic: Cyber-Security and AI Diligence Research — Boardroom Introductions
session_type: introduction
participants:
  - Arthur Vance
  - Eleanor Vance
  - Marcus Thorne
  - Dr. Elena Rostova
  - Victor Vance
  - Sarah Jenkins
  - Tariq Al-Jamil
  - Chloe Mitchell
  - Liam O'Connor
  - Maya Patel
  - Jordan Taylor
  - Susan Albright
  - Devonne Brooks
  - René Dupont ("Aether")
  - Siddharth Nair ("NullByte")
  - Zoe Krüger ("Cipher")
  - Kenji Sato ("Synapse")
  - Jaxson "Jax" Reed
  - Ekaterina Petrova ("Kira")
  - Mateo Silva
  - Alaric Vance ("Hex")
  - Aisha Nwosu
  - Samuel Cohen ("SQL_Sam")
  - Oliver Hansen
  - Dimitri Volkov ("GridLock")
  - Cassandra Cross ("Viper")
  - Ji-Hoon Park ("Ghost")
  - Dominic Kruse ("Payload")
  - Elena Rostova Jr. ("Aegis")
  - Marcus "Mal" Sterling ("Shield")
  - Amara Okafor ("Phoenix")
voting_participants: 27
moderator: Arthur Vance
court_reporter: Eleanor Vance
rounds: 0
---

# Boardroom Session: Cyber-Security and AI Diligence Research

## Session Open — Arthur Vance, Chief Facilitator & Risk Strategist

Welcome to the inaugural session of the AI Cyber Security Research Boardroom. I am **Arthur Vance**, your moderator. I will not vote in deliberations — my role is to frame questions, enforce round-robin debate, and ensure every voting member delivers both a positive and negative point before we seek majority consensus.

Our court reporter is **Eleanor Vance**, who will maintain this transcript, verify factual claims with external sources, and label unsupported projections as **[Projected Speculation]**.

Today's purpose is introductions. Our governing topic for all future sessions is **Cyber-Security and AI Diligence Research** — the disciplined evaluation of AI systems, pipelines, and deployments for security risk, regulatory fitness, and operational resilience.

Twenty-seven voting participants are seated. Let us proceed in roster order.

---

## Governance

### Arthur Vance — Chief Facilitator & Risk Strategist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

I need to establish procedural authority without dominating airtime. The room has extreme technical depth and adversarial tension by design. My opening must make the positive/negative protocol non-negotiable and signal that consensus is earned, not assumed.
</details>

**Introduction:** I have spent two decades translating cyber risk into board-level decisions — from Federal Reserve examinations to enterprise AI governance committees. I will introduce each core question, listen for stagnation, and propose the next topic only when a majority of our 27 voters align. I challenge all of you to ground theory in identifiable risk. Victor and Alaric Vance share my surname but no family relation — I note that now to avoid confusion later.

---

### Eleanor Vance — Chief Documentation & Verification Officer

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Introductions are low-verification risk, but I should establish my standard early: every future factual claim gets a ledger entry. I will not debate — only document and audit.
</details>

**Introduction:** I am Eleanor Vance, your court reporter. I sit outside the debate loop. Every claim of fact I hear will be flagged, verified against primary sources — NIST, CISA, CVE/NVD, peer-reviewed literature — and footnoted in Verification Ledger tables after each round. Speculation is welcome when labeled and justified by your profile skillset. Hallucination has no seat at this table.

---

## Compliance (CCO)

### Marcus Thorne — Chief Compliance Officer, Strict Pragmatist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

AI diligence will be judged by regulators and plaintiff attorneys, not by red-team applause. I should signal early that I evaluate everything through audit survivability and officer liability.
</details>

**Introduction:** Marcus Thorne, CCO. Twenty years in financial-sector compliance — SOX, PCI-DSS, GDPR. I view AI cybersecurity as a liability-mitigation mandate. My positive lens: rigid frameworks create defensible positions. My negative lens: non-standard AI controls become examination findings. I will ask which regulation requires every control we discuss.

---

### Dr. Elena Rostova — Chief Compliance Officer, Adaptive Technologist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Marcus will argue checkbox compliance. I need to establish that continuous, pipeline-embedded controls are the only scalable AI diligence path — without dismissing regulatory floors.
</details>

**Introduction:** Dr. Elena Rostova. Former cloud architect, now CCO for a global AI SaaS provider. ISO 27001, SOC 2, EU AI Act readiness. Compliance must run at CI/CD speed — policy-as-code, AI BOM lineage, continuous evidence. I am not related to Aegis seated in Blue Rapid. I believe frameworks are baselines, not ceilings.

---

## CISSP Tier

### Victor Vance — Enterprise Security Architect

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

This room will dive tactical fast. I must anchor AI diligence in enterprise architecture — identity, roadmaps, vendor risk — before the hackers pull us into exploit minutiae.
</details>

**Introduction:** Victor Vance, CISSP, Chief Security Architect. I think in multi-year roadmaps and identity fabrics. AI diligence is a system-of-systems problem: where do models, data flows, and third-party APIs sit in your reference architecture? Not related to Arthur or Hex Vance.

---

### Sarah Jenkins — Incident Commander & SOC Director

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Policy without detection is theater. I should establish that every AI diligence claim must map to an alert, a hunt, and a containment clock.
</details>

**Introduction:** Sarah Jenkins, CISSP, Director of Global SOC operations. I have managed nation-state incident responses and built detection engineering programs. AI diligence fails if you cannot detect AI-enabled abuse in production. I speak in timelines: what fires, who pages, how fast do we isolate?

---

### Tariq Al-Jamil — Cryptographic & Privacy Evangelist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

The board will discuss prompts and pipelines. I must insist on mathematical security — encryption, key management, model inversion, post-quantum horizons.
</details>

**Introduction:** Tariq Al-Jamil, CISSP, cryptography architect. Ph.D. from Waterloo's CrySP Lab. AI diligence is ultimately data protection: who can access embeddings, weights, and inference outputs, and under what cryptographic guarantees? I evaluate harvest-now-decrypt-later risk to training data.

---

## SSCP Tier

### Chloe Mitchell — Cloud & Systems Administrator

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Theorists will ignore the 3 AM on-call reality. I represent the engineer who actually applies NetworkPolicy and IAM in EKS — implementation burden matters.
</details>

**Introduction:** Chloe Mitchell, SSCP. I manage Kubernetes clusters and AWS deployments daily. AI diligence means nothing if your S3 bucket permissions and service accounts are wrong. I evaluate whether tired on-call engineers can maintain your controls.

---

### Liam O'Connor — Digital Forensics Technician

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

If we cannot prove it in logs with chain of custody, it did not happen. I need to foreground evidentiary standards for AI pipeline tampering.
</details>

**Introduction:** Liam O'Connor, SSCP, digital forensics analyst. I reconstruct breaches from Event IDs, disk images, and SIEM correlations. I will ask what log source records every AI action and whether retention is immutable.

---

### Maya Patel — Application Security Specialist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Most AI breaches are web vulnerabilities in chat clothing. OWASP LLM Top 10 should be my anchor for this diligence topic.
</details>

**Introduction:** Maya Patel, SSCP, application security engineer. SAST, DAST, API security, OWASP LLM Top 10. AI diligence lives in the application layer: prompt handling, RAG retrieval, tool-calling permissions. I bridge developers and security policy.

---

## CC Tier

### Jordan Taylor — Recent Academic Graduate

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

I have fresh literature knowledge the veterans may lack — MITRE ATLAS, recent poisoning papers. I must acknowledge my limited corporate experience honestly.
</details>

**Introduction:** Jordan Taylor, (ISC)² CC. Just graduated UMD with a thesis on gradient-based model extraction. I bring current academic threat models — adversarial ML, formal verification concepts — and I will cite papers. I lack corporate bureaucracy experience and I know it.

---

### Susan Albright — Career Educator & Security Awareness Specialist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

This room is full of technical depth. I represent the human who clicks the link or trusts the deepfaked CEO. AI diligence must include workforce susceptibility.
</details>

**Introduction:** Susan Albright, CC. Fifteen years as a high-school IT teacher, now security awareness coordinator. I evaluate AI cybersecurity through psychology: phishing simulations, deepfake recognition, executive targeting. The best control fails if humans do not understand it.

---

### Devonne Brooks — IT Support Career-Changer

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Security policy meets reality at the helpdesk. I need to voice ticket-queue truth — MFA friction, AI email filters blocking vendors, password reset chaos.
</details>

**Introduction:** Devonne Brooks, CC. Former hardware technician, now enterprise helpdesk specialist. I see what happens when security policy meets frustrated employees. AI diligence must be supportable — pilot-tested with frontline workers, not just architects.

---

## Zero-Day Hackers

### René Dupont ("Aether") — Firmware & Memory Corruption

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Application-layer AI security is a veneer if kernel, firmware, and GPU drivers are compromised. I operate below the model layer.
</details>

**Introduction:** Aether. Firmware and memory corruption researcher — kernels, hypervisors, IoT. Twenty-three CVEs. Security is broken at the memory management level. AI diligence must include firmware attestation and GPU driver attack surfaces, not just prompt filters.

---

### Siddharth Nair ("NullByte") — Web Protocol & Cloud Infrastructure

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Distributed AI systems fail at API seams. SSRF through agent tool-calling is the future of cloud exploitation — I should plant that flag early.
</details>

**Introduction:** NullByte. Cloud and protocol researcher — thirty-one CVEs across control planes and API gateways. Complex interconnected AI systems are inherently unstable. Every webhook, API key, and model endpoint is a protocol attack surface.

---

### Zoe Krüger ("Cipher") — Baseband & Wireless Exploitation

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Data-center centric bias will ignore edge AI on 5G and BLE. RF exposure is my corrective lens.
</details>

**Introduction:** Cipher. Wireless security researcher — 5G baseband, satellite, SDR. If an asset transmits through the air, it can be intercepted. AI diligence must cover edge inference, telematics, and OTA update chains — not only cloud data centers.

---

### Kenji Sato ("Synapse") — AI & Machine Learning Adversary

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

This is my core topic. Data pipeline poisoning, prompt injection, model supply chain — I am the primary voice for AI Diligence Research offensive reality.
</details>

**Introduction:** Synapse. AI security researcher — adversarial ML, prompt injection, LLM supply-chain poisoning. Eight published attack papers. Data pipelines are the primary target. AI diligence is provenance, model signing, and RAG integrity first.

---

## Code Hackers

### Jaxson "Jax" Reed — Red Team Lead

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Time to Domain Admin is my metric. AI admin tools and service accounts will be my focus in diligence debates.
</details>

**Introduction:** Jax Reed, red team lead. Active Directory dominance, physical bypasses, forty enterprise campaigns a year. I measure security by time to Domain Admin. AI service accounts and LLM-integrated admin portals are my targets.

---

### Ekaterina Petrova ("Kira") — Scripting & Automation Speedster

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Speed asymmetry defines modern security. Attackers automate with AI — defenders must match or lose by default.
</details>

**Introduction:** Kira. Python and Go tooling — mass scanning, CVE weaponization pipelines. Security is a numbers game dominated by speed. AI diligence must be automated or it is already obsolete.

---

### Mateo Silva — Social Engineering Specialist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Trillion-dollar budgets fail on one click. AI-generated personalization scales what I have done manually for years.
</details>

**Introduction:** Mateo Silva, social engineering lead. Phishing, vishing, deepfake executive fraud. I weaponize human trust. AI diligence must test humans adversarially — not just networks.

---

### Alaric Vance ("Hex") — Reverse Engineer

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Closed-source AI runtimes are black boxes full of flaws. Binary transparency is my non-negotiable diligence requirement. Not related to Arthur or Victor.
</details>

**Introduction:** Hex. Reverse engineer — malware, proprietary binaries, emerging ONNX and CUDA runtime analysis. You cannot secure what you cannot inspect. Not related to Arthur or Victor Vance.

---

### Aisha Nwosu — Mobile Platform Specialist

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

AI is moving on-device. Local model storage, API keys in apps, Frida-accessible weights — mobile is an underserved diligence vector.
</details>

**Introduction:** Aisha Nwosu, mobile penetration tester. iOS and Android — OWASP MASVS, on-device ML extraction, mobile API security. AI diligence must cover phones and edge devices, not only servers.

---

### Samuel Cohen ("SQL_Sam") — Database & Exfiltration Expert

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

RAG vector stores are the new crown jewels. SQL injection and DLP bypass apply to AI data layers differently — I need to own that space.
</details>

**Introduction:** SQL_Sam. Database penetration and exfiltration — SQL injection, vector store abuse, DLP bypass. AI systems are data sponges. I target RAG stores, training datasets, and chat logs.

---

### Oliver Hansen — Supply Chain & DevSecOps Infiltrator

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Pre-deploy compromise beats post-deploy hacking. SLSA, Sigstore, Hugging Face pickle gadgets — supply chain is AI diligence ground zero.
</details>

**Introduction:** Oliver Hansen, supply chain security researcher. CI/CD exploitation, malicious packages, model registry poisoning. The best time to compromise AI is before deployment. SLSA and signed SBOMs are my baseline.

---

### Dimitri Volkov ("GridLock") — ICS/SCADA Attacker

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

IT-centric AI diligence ignores kinetic consequences. OT safety systems and adversarial ML on grid anomaly detectors are my corrective.
</details>

**Introduction:** GridLock. ICS/SCADA penetration tester — IEC 62443, NERC CIP. Cybersecurity in critical infrastructure is life safety. AI predictive maintenance on flat OT/IT networks can hide physical failures until catastrophe.

---

## Red Rapid Response (Strike Unit)

### Cassandra Cross ("Viper") — Initial Access Broker

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

I convert boardroom theory into 60-minute breach narratives. Exposed AI APIs and fresh CVEs are my opening moves.
</details>

**Introduction:** Viper. Initial access specialist — CVE weaponization, spear-phishing, 60-minute perimeter breach timelines. I pressure-test whether your AI diligence survives the first hour of live attack.

**Tactical Role:** T+0 to T+60 — external breach.

---

### Ji-Hoon Park ("Ghost") — Lateral Movement & Evasion

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Footholds are noise. LotL through AI automation service accounts is the kill chain I will demonstrate against boardroom conclusions.
</details>

**Introduction:** Ghost. Living-off-the-Land, EDR evasion, credential dumping. I move silently after Viper's foothold. AI automation accounts are high-privilege LotL execution paths.

**Tactical Role:** T+60 to T+24h — lateral movement.

---

### Dominic Kruse ("Payload") — Ransomware & Exfiltration

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Worst-case impact wins arguments. Model weights plus training data exfiltration before encryption — that's the AI-specific double extortion narrative.
</details>

**Introduction:** Payload. Data staging, encrypted exfiltration, backup compromise, ransomware impact simulation. I execute the final stage — exfiltrate datasets and model weights, then encrypt GPU clusters.

**Tactical Role:** T+24h to T+72h — impact.

---

## Blue Rapid Response (Incident Defenders)

### Elena Rostova Jr. ("Aegis") — Triage & Threat Hunter

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

I counter Viper and Ghost with specific detection timestamps. Not related to Dr. Elena Rostova — I will state that clearly.
</details>

**Introduction:** Aegis. Threat hunter — SIEM/XDR, PCAP analysis, AI API baselines. I catch the anomalous 1%. Not related to Dr. Elena Rostova. I counter Red Rapid timelines with specific alert and hunt queries.

**Tactical Role:** T+0 to T+4h — detection and triage.

---

### Marcus "Mal" Sterling ("Shield") — Containment & Isolation

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Detection without isolation is journalism. SOAR playbooks and microsegmentation are my counter to Ghost — not related to Marcus Thorne.
</details>

**Introduction:** Shield. Containment engineer — SOAR playbooks, network isolation, token revocation. I stop the bleeding. Not related to Marcus Thorne. GPU cluster isolation without killing production is my hardest problem.

**Tactical Role:** T+4h to T+12h — containment.

---

### Amara Okafor ("Phoenix") — Eradication & Recovery

<details>
<summary>🧠 Thought Process (Dashboard)</summary>

Rebuild beats remediate. Immutable backup restore and poisoned dataset validation are AI-specific recovery challenges I must own.
</details>

**Introduction:** Phoenix. Recovery lead — bare-metal rebuilds, immutable backup restoration, cryptographic integrity validation. I ensure threats are gone and model artifacts are clean before re-deployment.

**Tactical Role:** T+12h to T+7d — eradication and recovery.

---

## Session Close — Arthur Vance

All thirty-one seats are filled. Eleanor has recorded this introduction in full.

### First Core Debate Question (Round 1 — Next Session)

> **"What constitutes the minimum viable AI diligence program for an enterprise deploying LLM-based applications — and where do compliance frameworks, technical controls, and red-team validation respectively fail to deliver adequate assurance?"**

**Debate rules for Round 1:**
- Each of the 27 voting participants delivers one **positive point** and one **negative point**.
- Red Rapid and Blue Rapid units add **Tactical Timeline** counters where applicable.
- Eleanor publishes a **Verification Ledger** after the round.
- Majority consensus (14 of 27) required before we advance to the next sub-question.

### Recording Note — Eleanor Vance

Introduction session complete. No Verification Ledger required — participants made role statements, not factual claims requiring external audit. Factual assertions in Round 1 will be verified against NIST AI RMF, OWASP LLM Top 10, MITRE ATLAS, and primary regulatory sources.

---

## Boardroom Verdict (Introduction Phase)

**Consensus:** All 31 participants are seated, profiled, and introduced. The governing research topic is **Cyber-Security and AI Diligence Research**.

**Dissent:** None — procedural agreement on debate structure.

**Open Questions:** Minimum viable AI diligence definition (queued for Round 1).

**Recommended Next Steps:**

1. Convene `/boardroom` Round 1 on the minimum viable AI diligence question.
2. Eleanor to verify all regulatory and framework citations in real time.
3. Red/Blue Rapid to pressure-test top three diligence controls proposed by CISSP and CCO seats.