AI can help a board member locate a disputed assumption, compare versions of a proposal or prepare sharper questions. It can also produce a fluent summary that leaves out the condition on which the entire investment depends.
For a Norwegian board, the useful decision is therefore specific: which preparation tasks can use AI, with which documents, in which environment, and with what checking? A general encouragement to “use AI responsibly” leaves too much to individual interpretation.
I recommend starting with one limited preparation task and requiring every material conclusion to remain traceable to the original papers. Time saved matters only if the board’s basis for deciding remains sound.
The missing reservation
Consider a hypothetical Norwegian AS assessing an acquisition. The board paper presents an earnings estimate that depends on retaining two key employees. An AI summary repeats the earnings estimate but omits that condition. A director who reads only the summary may ask about the price while missing the assumption that makes it defensible.
The failure is not necessarily a fabricated number. It is the removal of context. Similar problems arise when a summary treats a management forecast as an established fact, merges two alternatives, or loses the difference between “may” and “will”.
A useful preparation instruction would be: identify the proposal’s assumptions, exceptions and unresolved questions; point to the relevant source passages; distinguish what the paper states from your interpretation. The director must still open those passages and check that the references are real and support the answer.
Decide what may enter the tool
Before anyone uploads board papers, the company should approve both the service and the intended use. A board member’s paid personal account is not, by itself, an organizational approval or evidence of suitable data handling.
Management, supported by the relevant privacy, security and legal competence, should establish what information can be used and under what conditions. The chair should ensure the board has a clear working rule and that members understand it.
For a first trial, use public material or purpose-built fictional papers. Removing names from a real acquisition or personnel case may leave people or commercial plans identifiable. Do not treat superficial redaction as a reliable permission to upload.
For confidential material, examine access, retention, deletion, provider use of inputs, subcontractors and relevant data locations or transfers. A promise that inputs are not used for model training answers only one of those questions. Confirm the actual service terms and settings rather than assuming all accounts from a supplier have the same protections.
A member sitting on several boards should use company-approved, separate environments and avoid carrying documents, chat histories or connected data sources between companies. Restrict retrieval to the material authorized for that task, including any limits arising from conflicts of interest.
Privacy obligations depend on the processing
Where board papers contain personal data, assess the purpose, legal basis, necessity, security and supplier roles. GDPR articles 5, 6, 28, 32 and 35 are relevant starting points. A processor arrangement requires the appropriate contractual terms; a data protection impact assessment is required where the processing is likely to create high risk, with applicable supervisory criteria also considered. GDPR is incorporated into Norwegian law through section 1 of the Personal Data Act.
These are existing obligations, not a claim about a future Norwegian AI Act deadline. The legal references were checked on 12 October 2026. Particular documents can raise additional confidentiality, employment or transaction-specific questions that a general tool policy cannot resolve.
Datatilsynet’s 2024 sandbox report with NTNU is useful background on preparing an organization for generative AI and controlling access to information. It concerns a specific Copilot project and is not an approval of AI use on every board’s documents.
Test usefulness against an ordinary reading
Select a paper that the company has approved for the trial. Ask one reader to prepare normally and another to use AI with source checking. Compare the questions they identify, material conditions missed, unsupported claims and total preparation time including verification.
Test Norwegian wording explicitly. Could the tool preserve a reservation, distinguish an estimate from a commitment and handle the terminology the board actually uses? If English and Norwegian versions are involved, verify that translating the summary has not changed the strength of a recommendation.
Recalculate decision-critical figures from the source data using an appropriate calculation method. Do not treat an AI-generated explanation as verification of its own arithmetic. If checking the output takes more effort than reading the original, narrow the task or stop that use.
A working rule for the next board meeting
- Name the approved tool, account environment, task and permitted document categories.
- Require source checking of material claims, numbers, assumptions and reservations.
- Keep the original board papers available to every authorized member; mark AI assistance clearly in shared preparation material.
- Prohibit automated distribution or filing of AI output without a responsible person’s review.
- Define who handles mistakes, inappropriate uploads, access changes and deletion under the company’s retention rules.
Meeting recording and automatic minutes need a separate assessment of purpose, access and retention. Any draft minutes require human checking of the actual decisions, conditions and dissent. A generated account of the conversation is not proof of what the board decided.
The chair can place a review of the trial in the annual board agenda. If use expands from reading to acting, apply separate limits on AI authority. Better questions are a useful first result; delegating the board’s judgment is not the objective.