What It Actually Takes to Run a Defensible ERM Program A well-documented ERM program and a defensible one are two different things. Boards and audit committees are asking harder questions. They want to see methodology, consistency, and proof. After Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse, regulators made clear that risk oversight needs to be substantive and demonstrable. And your program is being judged against a higher standard than the one it was built for. This guide explains what the new standard looks like and what it takes to build a program that can meet it. You’ll learn why 52% of companies are being held to an ERM standard they’re still building toward, what separates documentation from defensibility, and how to embed methodology, calibration, and audit trails into your assessment workflow. What you’ll learn: What defensibility actually requires and why your board is asking about it now. How boards are evaluating ERM programs now: the shift from structural questions to questions about methodology, consistency, and quality. Three failure points where most ERM programs break down and the concrete capabilities required to fix them. Four design requirements for a defensible risk assessment framework: embedded methodology, cross-unit calibration, audit-ready documentation, and change tracking. Why spreadsheet-based ERM programs are vulnerable to board scrutiny and what a real audit-ready record looks like.