Board software's AI claims need a higher evidence standard
Summaries and draft minutes are easy to demonstrate. Claims about challenge, judgment and better decisions require much stronger proof.
What changed
Diligent's AI Board Member, Board Intelligence's IQ and a group of newer tools now promise to read the pack, identify gaps, propose questions and introduce alternative perspectives.
The feature list sounds impressive. The public evidence is much thinner. A fluent output is not proof that the advice is current, complete or useful.
Why it matters
Administrative AI can be tested against a clear task. Did it summarise the right paper? Did it capture the action? Advice is harder. Buyers need citations, source controls, recency, audit history and evidence from repeated use.
Vendors that make board-level claims should expect board-level scrutiny. A product page and a polished demonstration are a starting point, not validation.
Our view
Board Intelligence has the strongest method around paper quality and preparation. Diligent has the broadest distribution and data footprint. Newer products such as Hippoly and GovernIQ have cleaner propositions but much less public proof.
The current ranking should reward ambition cautiously. Until customers can inspect and challenge the sources behind the output, the marketing deserves more attention than the score.