Controls and assurance
Public accounting, internal controls, audit, GRC, and regulated-industry experience shape what must be established and what evidence is sufficient.
Why Pulse
Execution Integrity is not simply a software problem or a compliance framework. It requires people who understand how standards are established, how controls are tested, how enterprise systems execute, how evidence is judged, and how consequential workflows operate in the real world.
Why this team
A policy expert can define intent. A technologist can identify the execution boundary. An auditor can judge evidence. An operator can make the work usable. Pulse brings those perspectives together around the same workflow.
Public accounting, internal controls, audit, GRC, and regulated-industry experience shape what must be established and what evidence is sufficient.
Architecture, integrations, cloud, data, security, and workflow experience shape where Pulse can observe, reconstruct, or govern execution.
The Execution Integrity Framework and The Closure Method connect findings to approved standards, testable criteria, and revalidation.
Finance, delivery, analytics, customer success, and enterprise leadership keep the work practical, adoptable, and tied to a consequential business problem.
Company leadership
Pulse is built under Fierce, Inc. by leaders who combine risk assurance, enterprise technology, finance, operations, product execution, and long-standing enterprise relationships.
Ed leads Pulse Governance strategy, category development, and commercial direction. He began his career in risk assurance at Arthur Andersen and PwC, focused on internal and systems controls, and has spent more than twenty-five years leading enterprise work through Fierce. His role connects public accounting, executive operations, innovation, and the central Execution Integrity question: did approved intent become the right action?
Saravanan leads the technology path behind Pulse Governance. His background spans enterprise architecture, cloud engineering, application integration, data platforms, zero-trust security, legacy modernization, SDLC, ERP, CRM, and compliance-sensitive enterprise systems. He translates governance requirements into architecture and execution patterns that can operate inside real workflows.
Geeta brings the operating discipline required to move Pulse Governance from category thesis into a working business. Her experience spans finance, operations, technology, data analytics, project execution, reporting, forecasting, agile delivery, product build leadership, access discipline, and process rigor. She connects the buyer need, operating model, and delivery path.
Practitioner and methodology leadership
Jesse and Arvind bring complementary practitioner credibility. Jesse leads methodology and claim discipline. Arvind brings controls, information security, audit, risk, and enterprise customer experience. Both help ensure Pulse speaks the language of the buyers who must rely on the output.
Jesse anchors the GRC methodology behind the Execution Integrity Framework and The Closure Method. He brings 27 years across pharmaceutical, biotech, medical device, regulated software, clinical trials, healthcare technology, and financial services, with experience spanning FDA 21 CFR Part 11, HIPAA, GDPR, ISO 9001, ISO 27001, ISO 42001, NIST AI RMF, vendor risk, consent-decree remediation, quality systems, and evidence-ready compliance programs.
Arvind brings a senior practitioner view across information security, GRC, SOX, global capability centers, business continuity, privacy, internal and external audits, and enterprise risk management. He is Director of Customer Success at Diligent and previously worked with PwC, ANZ, and HCL Technologies. His credentials include ISO 27001 Lead Auditor, CISA, CISM, COBIT, ITIL, and CCNA. For Pulse, he helps translate execution evidence, control gaps, workflow risk, and remediation needs into language GRC, Internal Audit, compliance, and risk leaders can use.
How the work comes together
Each discipline owns a different part of the loop, but the workflow is examined as one connected system.
“The point is not to ask the buyer to trust a framework, a platform, or a résumé. The point is to make the workflow itself examinable.”Pulse Governance operating principle
Why buyers can trust the posture
Pulse separates response-based assessment from evidence-based examination, distinguishes a demonstration from production operation, and identifies the relationship and scope behind external reviews.
Identifies likely gaps and workflow priorities from responses. It does not prove that a control operated.
Examines one defined workflow against the approved standard, authority, execution path, and available evidence.
Requires a definable, instrumentable execution boundary and a client-approved standard in force.
States who performed the review, what was examined, the relationship, and the limits of the conclusion.
Review the framework, methodology, sample outputs, technical evidence, and application pages that show how the disciplines connect.