<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Risk Management on carney.wiki</title><link>https://carney.wiki/tags/risk-management/</link><description>Recent content in Risk Management on carney.wiki</description><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://carney.wiki/tags/risk-management/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Data Governance Isn't Dead. It's Becoming AI Readiness.</title><link>https://carney.wiki/blog/did-governance-just-die/</link><pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://carney.wiki/blog/did-governance-just-die/</guid><description>Data governance is not dead.
Governance theater is.
If you have ever sat through a data governance council where everyone agreed definitions matter and then immediately went back to shipping whatever, you know the problem.
The meeting was not governance.
It was a performance about governance.
That used to be annoying. In the AI era, it becomes dangerous.
Humans can often patch ambiguity with tribal knowledge. They know which dashboard is &amp;ldquo;really&amp;rdquo; used by finance, which field is stale, which Salesforce status is fiction, and which metric definition nobody says out loud.</description></item></channel></rss>