Why Pulse

Built by people who understand controls, systems, evidence, and execution.

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

Execution Integrity cannot be built from one discipline.

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.

1

Controls and assurance

Public accounting, internal controls, audit, GRC, and regulated-industry experience shape what must be established and what evidence is sufficient.

2

Enterprise systems

Architecture, integrations, cloud, data, security, and workflow experience shape where Pulse can observe, reconstruct, or govern execution.

3

Methodology and remediation

The Execution Integrity Framework and The Closure Method connect findings to approved standards, testable criteria, and revalidation.

4

Operating and commercial discipline

Finance, delivery, analytics, customer success, and enterprise leadership keep the work practical, adoptable, and tied to a consequential business problem.

Company leadership

The operating team behind Pulse Governance.

Pulse is built under Fierce, Inc. by leaders who combine risk assurance, enterprise technology, finance, operations, product execution, and long-standing enterprise relationships.

EB
Founder and CEO

Edward J. Beltran, CPA

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?

SV
Head of Technology

Saravanan Venkatesan

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.

GP
Head of Operations

Geeta Prem Krishnan

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

The work is pressure-tested by people who live inside GRC, controls, audit, and regulated environments.

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.

JH
GRC Practitioner and Methodology Advisor

Jesse Hart, MS, PMP

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.

AP
Controls and GRC Practitioner Advisor

Arvind Prem Krishnan

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

From approved intent to defensible execution evidence.

Each discipline owns a different part of the loop, but the workflow is examined as one connected system.

  • Controls and GRC establish the obligations, criteria, authority, and evidence requirements.
  • The Closure Method moves identified gaps into client-approved standards with version, scope, and effective date.
  • Technology identifies the evidence sources, execution boundary, integration pattern, and replay path.
  • Operations turns the work into a scoped engagement that can begin with one historical workflow.
  • Assessment, diagnostic, validation, shadow assurance, and runtime governance remain clearly distinguished.
“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

Credibility includes knowing what the work does not claim.

Pulse separates response-based assessment from evidence-based examination, distinguishes a demonstration from production operation, and identifies the relationship and scope behind external reviews.

1

Assessment

Identifies likely gaps and workflow priorities from responses. It does not prove that a control operated.

2

Diagnostic

Examines one defined workflow against the approved standard, authority, execution path, and available evidence.

3

Runtime governance

Requires a definable, instrumentable execution boundary and a client-approved standard in force.

4

External review

States who performed the review, what was examined, the relationship, and the limits of the conclusion.

Meet the team through the evidence.

Review the framework, methodology, sample outputs, technical evidence, and application pages that show how the disciplines connect.

Explore Evidence