Before you send a written reply to a director, give an AI reviewer the director's message, your draft, and the documents behind every number in it. Ask it to match each question in the message to the sentence that answers it, and to flag anything the draft states as settled that the documents leave open. This guide covers replies after the meeting: a follow-up email, a question a director sends between meetings, or an action item from the minutes. For the pack you send ahead of a meeting, see reviewing a board pack before the meeting.
Where board replies go wrong
Replies to directors usually get written quickly, between other work. When a director asks two things in one email, the second question tends to get a single sentence or none. A figure in the reply can use a different definition from the figure in the pack, which leaves the director holding two numbers and no explanation. A sentence meant to settle nerves, such as "this doesn't change the plan," can go further than the analysis behind it. A date offered to close the thread becomes a commitment that nobody has staffed.
Written replies also get forwarded, and a loose sentence can turn up in the next meeting's materials.
A worked example
This example is illustrative and doesn't describe a customer. Two days after a quarterly meeting, a director emails the chief executive of a subscription software company: "The pack shows 2.1% monthly churn for Q3. The customer success dashboard I saw last month was closer to 4%. Which number is right, and does the gap change the renewal forecast you showed us?" The chief executive writes a four-paragraph reply and, before sending it, puts five things into one request:
- The director's email, pasted in full.
- The draft reply.
- The churn slide and the renewal forecast tab from the pack.
- An export of Q3 cancellations from the billing system.
- One instruction: read as the director who asked, list each question in the email with the sentence that answers it, and flag any claim the attachments don't support.
A review that helps points at specific lines. It might confirm that the draft explains the gap clearly: the pack counts lost revenue, and the dashboard counts lost accounts, which runs higher because small accounts cancel more often. It might then point out that the second question gets one sentence, "The forecast is unaffected," while the forecast tab applies 2.1% to every segment, including small accounts, where the export shows monthly account losses near 5%. The review might also flag the closing line, "We'll send a full churn breakdown next week," because it names no owner and the minutes list no such action.
The chief executive checks both points against the forecast tab in a few minutes, reruns the small-account segment, and replaces "unaffected" with the actual change in forecast renewals. The closing line now names the finance lead and a date the finance lead has agreed to.
A request you can copy
Below are a message from a director, my draft reply, and the documents my reply relies on. Read the draft as the director who sent the message. List each question the message asks, then quote the sentence in my draft that answers it, or say that nothing does. Flag every number in the draft that doesn't match the attached documents, and every claim that states something as settled when the documents leave it open. List each date, owner, or follow-up the draft commits to. Suggest new wording only for the sentences you flag, and keep my facts unchanged.
Attach the documents even if the director didn't. A reviewer working from the email alone has no way to catch a number that contradicts the pack.
How the Pingpong web review app runs it
The web review app sends your request through several models in order. Each later model receives the original request and every earlier answer, with instructions to assess the work so far. With a board reply, an early pass might map each question to its answer, and a later pass might check whether a flagged number is wrong or only defined differently. You get a final answer and can open each earlier pass.
Each reviewer reads the earlier answers, so a confident mistake in the first pass can carry forward. Check every flagged figure against the source file before you edit the reply.
What a model review can't check
A model doesn't know what was said after the meeting ended or whether other directors have raised the same question privately. It also can't tell you who should receive the reply. At many companies, a substantive answer to one director goes to the whole board so everyone works from the same information, and your company secretary or counsel will know the practice. A reply that touches a pending legal matter or results that haven't been made public should go past counsel before it reaches any director.
If the reply proposes a decision the board hasn't made yet, see reviewing a high-stakes decision package. For a general check on any draft, see getting a second opinion on a draft. For the steps in the app, see running your first review. More guides live under work decisions before you commit.