Using AI to Help Write Better Board Papers
Using AI to Help Write Better Board Papers
David Cantrick-Brooks | 21/06/2026

We all know how much time is required to write a good board paper (I am including committee papers in this) and we’ve often heard the adage: ‘I didn’t have time to write you a short letter, so I wrote you a long one instead’ (or words to that effect), often attributed to Mark Twain, although it goes back to Blaise Pascal in 1657.Regardless, both men were highlighting the same timeless truth: writing concisely is incredibly difficult. It is always faster and easier to let words spill out onto the page; editing them down into a sharp, clear, and powerful message requires significant time and effort, especially where there is a lot of data and the issues are complex.Fortunately, we have AI to call upon to help us, although we need to be very careful about confidentiality and sensitivity – internally and externally.There must be appropriate guardrails (often in the form of policies and procedures, etc.) and they need to be followed by everyone (without exception).

Directors want papers which (among other things):

You will note that the word ‘relevant’ appears frequently, which should come as no surprise.Problems with paper length can often be traced back to a lack of relevance in the content.

As a wise mentor once said to me, when writing a meeting paper always think about the WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WHY and HOW, noting there can be many angles to consider here.

So, how can AI help with these?With well-constructed or engineered prompts, generative AI (combined with agentic AI1) can:

Diarise due dates for papers and send reminders to management.Think workflow …

Research and compile content from relevant, valid and credible internal and external sources.

Succinctly summarise and synthesise large volumes of data / information, even if it is dispersed and complex.

Construct tables, graphs, flowcharts, etc. with minimal effort.

Identify, describe and explain relationships between things.

Test assumptions, limitations and constraints under certain scenarios, including with respect to different alternatives.However, generative AI can produce inaccurate or fabricated content; the Federal Court’s 2026 AI practice note is a useful reminder that outputs may contain fictitious citations, factual errors or incorrect legal analysis.

Reference previous relevant decisions / transactions.

Populate standard templates with the required information.

Review papers for completeness, logic and accuracy (including with reference to any agreed guidelines / instructions to authors of papers or any specific requirements).

Edit papers according to certain guidelines (including tone and style).

Call out issues requiring further thought / attention.

Tidy up papers ready for publication.

Create handy summaries for directors.

Identify emerging themes and issues within a meeting pack for directors, which might otherwise be missed.

Create draft ‘skeleton’ or ‘shell’ minutes and run sheet from the papers in the meeting pack for the company secretary.

Assign responsibilities in respect of pre-approval sign-offs and post-approval actions.Again, think workflow …

Send reminders to those responsible for post-meeting actions.

Provide inputs into the meeting cycle (including, for example, additions to the annual workplan).

IMPORTANT: This list is not exhaustive (simply illustrative).

1 Note that AI can diarise, assign actions and set and send reminders only where it is properly integrated with authorised systems, configured correctly and subject to access controls.

It can take time to construct or engineer an AI prompt, but the time and effort will be worth it.I can say this from first-hand experience.

AI is an incredible tool, although we need to be very careful about confidentiality and sensitivity – even with an enterprise version.There must be appropriate guardrails (in the form of policies and procedures, etc.) and they need to be followed by everyone.Note that approved enterprise tools also require appropriate data-handling rules, user training, human review and governance controls – consistent with the Australian Government’s voluntary AI safety guardrails, which emphasise accountability, risk assessment, testing, controls and meaningful human oversight.

OAIC guidance recommends that organisations do not enter personal information, particularly sensitive information, into publicly available generative AI tools because of significant and complex privacy risks.

With deep knowledge and experience, Governance in Action can assist clients with ‘traditional’ and AI-assisted board paper writing, including prompt engineering.Governance in Action also has and can develop bespoke AI-based apps to assist clients with writing board papers.

This article has been prepared with the aid of AI. Final judgement, editing and accountability of course remain with the author.

General Disclaimer:

The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice on any matter.

No person(s) should act, or refrain from acting, solely on the basis of the material contained on this website. Your access of this website, and any use that you may make of the information on it, is not intended to create, and your use does not constitute, a contractual relationship of any kind.

All material published by Governance in Action Pty Ltd on its website remains its property, with copyright attached, and all rights are reserved.

PreviousNext

Related Articles

Tranche 2 AML/CTF: An Early Temperature Check for Professional Service Providers

Australia’s Tranche 2 AML/CTF reforms moved into live operation on 1 July 2026. One month later, the evidence is not strong enough for a verdict - but it is sufficient to identify the questions that matter. This article explains why scope mapping remains the first control, clarifies the significance of the 29 July enrolment deadline, and examines the shift from having policies and templates to operating an effective AML/CTF framework. It also considers the position of governance and company secretarial providers, the need to integrate customer due diligence into ordinary workflows, the interaction between recordkeeping and privacy, and the responsibilities of governing bodies, senior managers and compliance officers. The central lesson is that commencement readiness is not completion: the next phase is to test, evidence and improve how the program works in live engagements.

08/02/2026

APRA’s proposed recast CPS 510: What changes, what matters and how boards should prepare

APRA’s proposed recast CPS 510 Governance is more than a technical consolidation. It would combine five prudential standards into one cross-industry framework and impose clearer, more evidence-based expectations for board accountability, delegation, management information, skills, performance, renewal, conflicts and fitness and propriety. The most consequential proposals include a mandatory measurable board skills matrix, an independent external board review every three years for significant financial institutions, and a 12-year maximum tenure for non-executive directors. The draft also creates sharper requirements for group-board independence and board information, while reducing routine fit-and-proper reporting through alignment with the Financial Accountability Regime. This article explains the key changes, contrasts them with the draft 5th edition of the ASX Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations, and sets out a practical implementation agenda for boards, company secretaries and governance advisers. Although commencement is expected in early 2028, long-lead matters such as director succession, committee composition, constitutions, charters and systems should be identified well before the final standard takes effect.

08/01/2026

Forty Years of Director and Officer Penalties in Australia: What the Evidence Really Shows

Australia’s corporate-enforcement system has changed substantially over the four financial decades to 30 June 2026. Civil-enforcement activity and statutory penalty ceilings have increased, and recent cases demonstrate that directors and senior officers can face substantial personal penalties, lengthy disqualification and costs exposure. Yet the available public data does not prove that the underlying rate of serious misconduct has risen—or that higher financial penalties alone deter it. Headline ASIC totals are dominated by penalties imposed on companies, while director-specific research shows that disqualification and imprisonment have historically been central to individual accountability. This article separates what the evidence establishes from what remains uncertain, examines the impact of the 2019 penalty reforms, and identifies the practical lessons for boards, governance professionals and regulators.

07/29/2026