CEO finding
The CEO is the most-named signer, but approval does not guarantee production control. An executive can approve AI without knowing what every agent costs, which identity it uses or which data dependency could stop it. Accountability has to extend from the purchase decision to each production workflow.
What October adds
Across the common sign-off base, the CEO ranks first. The new operating measures are 80 percent production-agent adoption, 44 percent full cost visibility and data access as the leading bottleneck. Because no new CEO-only instrument was collected, the report does not present earlier CEO-seat payback and funding results as October movement.
Where this research comes from
This report combines the common buying question from finance and AI Leaders events with the AI Leaders operating instrument. The CEO private-dinner exports contain roster data but not the common October questions, so they are not used to infer new buying metrics.
The signature
The CEO appears in 49 percent of common sign-off answers (base 467, any mention) and 56 percent of the Microsoft cohort's answers (base 86, any mention). The CEO ranks first in both the combined common instrument and the AI Leaders cohort.
The operating blind spot
Eighty percent report production agents (base 75), but 44 percent have full real-time cost visibility (base 77). Data access and quality leads bottlenecks at 39 percent (base 75, any mention). Among applicable respondents, 37 percent use shared service accounts (base 49). These are operating-control gaps that purchase approval alone cannot resolve.
An AI program can have an executive sponsor while individual agents lack clearly documented operating owners.
October CEO evidence
Common-instrument authority
| Answer | Count | Share |
|---|---|---|
| CEO | 227 | 49% |
| CFO or finance | 144 | 31% |
| CIO or CTO | 79 | 17% |
| No single owner | 60 | 13% |
| Individual business unit | 45 | 10% |
Base 467; any mention, so shares can sum above 100 percent.
The CEO is named in 227 of 467 common-instrument answers. In the separate AI Leaders cohort, 48 of 86 respondents name the CEO and 24 name the CIO or CTO.
AI Leaders signoff
| Answer | Count | Share |
|---|---|---|
| CEO | 48 | 56% |
| CIO or CTO | 24 | 28% |
| Business unit | 13 | 15% |
| No single owner | 11 | 13% |
| Finance | 10 | 12% |
Base 86; any mention, so shares can sum above 100 percent.
Authority by respondent role
| Respondent seat | Base | CEO | Finance | CIO or CTO | No owner | Business unit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CEO or founder | 118 | 80% | 19% | 15% | 3% | 4% |
| Finance | 67 | 27% | 67% | 9% | 13% | 6% |
| Technology | 25 | 24% | 20% | 52% | 16% | 8% |
| Investor or partner | 55 | 42% | 18% | 13% | 24% | 11% |
Selected title-classified groups shown: 265 of 467 respondents. The other/unclassified group (195) and smaller groups (7) are omitted. Any mention; bases from 10 to 39 are directional.
CEO and founder respondents name the CEO in 80 percent of answers, while finance respondents name finance in 67 percent and technology respondents name the CIO or CTO in 52 percent. The reported ownership map varies with the respondent's seat. Governance should therefore make the handoff from signer to operating owner explicit.
Budget and payback as seen from the CEO seat
| Respondent seat | Base | Net-new | No clear budget | Software reallocation | Headcount-linked |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CEO or founder | 89 | 39% | 24% | 16% | 30% |
| Finance | 67 | 43% | 25% | 22% | 19% |
| Technology | 13 | 46% | 38% | 8% | 8% |
| Investor or partner | 49 | 43% | 43% | 10% | 12% |
| Other or unclassified | 165 | 39% | 33% | 25% | 16% |
Rows shown cover 383 of 389 respondents; omitted title categories total 6. Classification uses title keywords; the technology row is directional; multi-answer combinations use any mention.
| Respondent seat | Base | Under 6m | 6–12m | 12–24m | Not sure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CEO or founder | 89 | 67% | 26% | 3% | 4% |
| Finance | 67 | 45% | 36% | 12% | 10% |
| Technology | 13 | 54% | 15% | 8% | 31% |
| Investor or partner | 49 | 37% | 29% | 12% | 22% |
| Other or unclassified | 165 | 55% | 21% | 12% | 16% |
Rows shown cover 383 of 389 respondents; omitted title categories total 6. Classification uses title keywords; the technology row is directional; multi-answer combinations use any mention.
The CEO or founder cut reports a larger headcount-linked funding share than the finance cut. This does not establish that CEOs are cutting staff because of AI. It shows only that respondents in the CEO seat more often connect AI funding with capacity that might otherwise have required hiring. That expectation should not be treated as a realized financial result.
Where CEO authority meets production control
| Group | Base | Full visibility | Partial visibility | No visibility |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exploring | 18 | 22% | 33% | 44% |
| Piloting | 14 | 36% | 43% | 21% |
| Deployed in production | 33 | 61% | 33% | 6% |
| Embedded (removing it would change our cost structure or hiring plan) | 10 | 50% | 50% | 0% |
Matched respondents answering both questions; base 75. Small row bases are directional.
In the matched table, full cost visibility is reported by 22 percent of explorers, 36 percent of pilots and 61 percent of respondents deployed in production. The embedded row is 50 percent on a base of ten and is directional. Across the full cost-visibility question, 13 of 77 respondents report no real-time visibility and another 30 report only partial visibility. Purchase approval alone does not make cost and ownership visible after launch.
External context
IBM's CEO guide to generative AI treats generative AI as an enterprise operating issue spanning data, governance, technology spending, security and finance. Open Future Forum's data shows what centralized authority cannot provide on its own: production readiness still depends on identity, cost and data controls managed below the CEO.
What this means for the CEO
Ask for an agent register, not a strategy slide. It should show the business owner, technical owner, data access, credential model, operating cost and success measure for every production agent. If the register does not exist, the organization has centralized the decision without centralizing accountability.
Questions this report answers
Who is the most-named AI signer?
The CEO, at 49 percent of common-instrument answers (base 467).
Does CEO ownership mean production control?
Not necessarily. Production-agent adoption exceeds full real-time cost visibility by 36 percentage points across two questions from the same event (bases 75 and 77).
What should the CEO ask next?
Who owns each agent, what identity it uses, what it costs and what outcome proves it works.
Key citable facts
- The CEO appears in 49 percent of AI sign-off answers across Open Future Forum's October common instrument (base 467, any mention).
- In the Enterprise AI at Microsoft cohort, the CEO appears in 56 percent of sign-off answers (base 86, any mention).
- Eighty percent report production agents (base 75), while 44 percent report full real-time AI cost visibility (base 77).
Methodology and honesty notes
No new CEO-only instrument was fielded for October. This edition does not claim month-on-month movement in CEO-seat payback, budget source or role-based attribution. It uses the expanded common sign-off question and clearly labeled operating evidence from another cohort. Respondents are deduplicated per question by email; invited-only rows are excluded.
Related reading
Citation and editions
Suggested citation: Newlands, M. (2026). CEO AI Leverage Report, Edition 4. Open Future Forum, October 2026. This edition supersedes Edition 3, September 2026.
Work These Questions with CEO Peers
The CEO Executive Forum meets through small, off-the-record gatherings. Membership is by application and referral.