The day begins on a shared stage rather than with a single keynote, where several leaders introduce ideas that follow throughout the day.

It opens with the question the Forum exists to ask. Trustworthy AI sits at the intersection of engineering best practice, legal regulation, and human ethics. Most of the day is spent on the first two, but almost everyone building AI today is asking one of three questions: How do we build it, how do we exploit it, how do we control it? Far fewer ask what kind of organisations we intend to build with this technology, and an organisation that cannot answer that has no way to judge which AI is worth the investment.

From there the morning turns practical. A live look at what changes when AI strategy and architecture stops being a document and becomes an instrument you can use, a keynote from the Chief Digital Officer at the International Organization for Migration, big thinking about what IT firms need to become in this era, and where non-IT firms should invest their precious IT budgets to achieve the greatest impact to their mission.

What attendees leave with: a common vocabulary for the day, a higher bar for what counts as a hard problem, and a question about their own organisation they did not arrive with.

Working Session A. Runs alongside the symposia. Attend both working sessions, one, or neither.

Building an agent is no longer the hard part. Keeping a population of them running inside a real organisation is. This session takes on the machinery that decides whether agents survive contact with the organisation's real work, and it stays deliberately platform-neutral: identity and permissions, ownership and who gets called at night, cost and consumption, observability, versioning and change control, retirement, and the problem of the agents nobody registered.

It is work rather than talk. Attendees put their own blockers on the table at the start, the group sorts them into the patterns that keep recurring, and the remainder of the time is spent building shared answers to the ones most of the room holds in common. The conversation stays at the level where it transfers, so that a bank or a public sector agency can use a version of the same answer, with each participant's specifics as the worked examples.

Nothing needs to be written on the day. The work is captured and, in the weeks that follow, published as a reference with every contributor credited as a co-author unless they prefer otherwise.

What attendees leave with: their hardest production problems worked through by a room of peers, the contacts of everyone who worked on them, and their names on the published result.

Neither a market forecast nor a vendor's view of the world. This is what has actually been observed leading this work with organisations across more than fifteen countries and six sectors: where the money is going, where it is being wasted, which capabilities reliably separate the organisations pulling ahead, and how the picture differs by region and by sector. It draws on maturity assessments run against five pillars and twenty-five dimensions, so the patterns are measured rather than anecdotal.

Expect some uncomfortable findings, among them the averaged-score trap, where visible strength in a few dimensions conceals weakness in the ones carrying real weight. And expect the aggregate answer, which is that nearly every organisation in the world still sits somewhere between reactive and proactive, whatever its press releases say.

What attendees leave with: a candid benchmark against peer organisations, and a sharper sense of which current investments are load-bearing.

Description to be announced.

Working Session B. Runs alongside the symposia. Attend both working sessions, one, or neither.

Every organisation runs on context its people hold implicitly. Who decides what. What gets escalated, to whom, and how fast. What good work looks like. What is never done regardless of who asks. Almost none of it is written down, and agents inherit none of it. The Human Context Protocol is an open line of work on making that context explicit enough that mixed teams of people and agents can operate against it: leadership capabilities, decision rights, and the operating norms of teams whose members are not all human.

This is a drafting session. What is a role when part of it is performed by an agent? Where does accountability sit when the work was assembled by software and approved by a person? What must digital fluency mean now? What do regulators already expect an organisation to demonstrate about the competence of its people? The work stays at the level of the protocol rather than any one sector, with participants' own situations as the test cases.

Contributions are captured and developed after the event into a published set of protocol components, distributed to everyone present, with contributors credited as co-authors unless they prefer otherwise.

What attendees leave with: a first draft for their own organisation, a set of questions their leadership team has not yet been asked, and their name on the published work.

Description to be announced.

Description to be announced.

Microsoft's Director of Enterprise AI Advocacy closes the day on what she sees inside organisations: the ones that make the leap, the ones that stall, and the difference between them, which is rarely what leadership believes it is.

The second half is ask and answer. Put your real problem to the room, whatever the day has surfaced or failed to resolve. Often the answer turns out to be someone three seats away who solved it eighteen months ago, and those introductions are made deliberately and followed up after the event rather than left to the coffee queue. It is the part of the day the Forum takes most seriously. Published knowledge is durable, but a peer who will take your call next year is worth more.

What attendees leave with: a straight answer from someone who sees hundreds of these programmes, at least one introduction worth having, and a next step that fits their organisation.