Over the past six to twelve months, I have written and published a series of essays exploring Risk Intelligence as a discipline. Those pieces were necessarily conceptual. They set out a way of thinking about uncertainty, behaviour, and governance in environments that are becoming faster, more interconnected, and more difficult to interpret.
I paused the series for a period. Not because the underlying questions have been resolved, but because they required time to settle. In that time, conditions have continued to shift in ways that reinforce the questions this series is concerned with. Artificial intelligence has moved from novelty to infrastructure. Interdependence continues to deepen. Narrative volatility has become more visible. The gap between how risk is represented and how it is actually lived has not narrowed. In many organisations, it has widened.
This next set of essays is more explicit. It moves beyond description to examine what it means to build for Risk Intelligence, and what that requires organisations to give up as well as what they stand to gain.
These essays are not instructions, nor are they arguments to be accepted in full. They are prompts for reflection on how organisations choose to represent, interpret, and act under uncertainty. They are best read selectively rather than sequentially.
Where they resonate, the next step is not configuration, but conversation. The question is whether existing governance, processes, and infrastructure are capable of engaging with the form of uncertainty described here.
In many organisations, they are not.
Richard Anderson
Founder, AndersonRisk
This essay was first published on 28 April 2026 on my Substack.