Workflow
Prepare a Board Meeting with an Aurora Agent Team
Prepare source-linked board materials, reconcile definitions and expose decisions while keeping final review and governance with responsible people.
Prepare a board meeting with an Aurora agent team by separating evidence assembly, decision framing and final review. Ask for a source-linked preparation packet: what changed, which figures need checking, which questions need board attention and what remains unresolved. The founder and qualified reviewers approve the materials and the company's actual board process.
This is an original preparation recipe with a fictional worked example. It is not a recorded product run, a board-minute service, governance sign-off or permission to disclose documents. Agents can help prepare material; they do not become directors or approve the decisions.
Keep the agenda in its existing owner
The startup board meeting agenda already provides an agenda, pre-read and decision-log template. Use it for that structure. This workflow owns the work before the meeting: source selection, metric reconciliation, a decision-ready draft and a final handoff. It does not reproduce another agenda timetable.
Sequoia's board-preparation guidance recommends drawing on operating materials and using a format that supports useful discussion; a written memo can serve that purpose. That supports a practical starting point: use information the team actually manages, rather than rebuild a polished story that no owner can trace.
Define the packet and source boundary
Name the meeting, preparation owner, permitted readers, source cutoff and review deadline. Identify the existing source for each figure or statement. A late file does not automatically outrank an approved earlier record. A forecast, a preliminary actual and a reviewed historical figure must keep their labels.
Separate ordinary preparation from privileged, personnel or other restricted material. Let the responsible owner decide where those topics belong and who may access them. Do not paste a complete confidential board folder into an assistant just to avoid selecting relevant excerpts.
| Responsibility | Useful input | Prepared output | Human reviewer |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence assembly | Approved operating reports and prior commitment record | Source/period/definition table and discrepancies | Relevant data owner |
| Decision framing | Accepted evidence, founder questions and known options | A short brief on the decision or investigation needed | Founder or topic owner |
| Packet review | Current draft, accepted sources and authorized audience | Unresolved facts, version/access checks and revision list | Founder and appropriate professional reviewers |
Use one person for more than one responsibility if that is simpler. Where optional Aurora Agents is available, profiles organize the work; they do not establish confidentiality partitions or independent professional judgment. A team drawing in an illustration is not evidence that several agents executed a handoff.
A source-to-decision preparation board
| Packet item | Source and cutoff | Meaning/definition | Issue and owner | Decision needed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operating change | [Approved report and period] | [What actually changed] | [Missing or conflicting fact] | [Discuss, investigate or note] |
| Business measure | [Working source, units and date] | [Actual/forecast and counting method] | [Data owner who resolves it] | [Which assumption needs attention?] |
| Prior commitment | [Reviewed prior action record] | [Accepted task and actual state] | [No owner, missed dependency or unknown receipt] | [Continue, revise or close] |
| Request for help | [Founder-approved context] | [Specific contribution being requested] | [Permission or disclosure question] | [Who can responsibly help?] |
Give the assistant a source label it can point to. If the data owner has not confirmed a figure, the correct output is a question or a held item. Do not average conflicting numbers, label a missing measure zero or infer that a management decision was approved.
Fictional example: reconcile the denominator before writing the board claim
Fictional teaching example. CivicBoard, a software startup, is preparing a board discussion about onboarding. One operating note records twelve active trial organizations. A draft slide says “twelve customers,” while the approved commercial record shows seven paying organizations. The sources describe different populations.
| Preparation pass | What it returns | Human correction |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence assembly | Twelve trial organizations and seven paying organizations, with separate definitions | Do not convert trial activity into paying customers |
| Decision framing | Ask which onboarding problem the next product investigation should address | Replace “growth proves our process works” with a question supported by the evidence |
| Prior commitment review | A customer-interview summary was promised; no accepted final summary is supplied | Keep the item open and identify the owner |
| Final packet review | The revised labels match accepted sources; one question remains blocked | Founder approves the actual version and audience, without claiming the board decided anything |
The output is not a newly invented customer total. It is a clearer discussion: what the two measures mean, what the team has learned and which investigation deserves attention. The board's real discussion and any official resolutions remain outside this fictional example.
Run the preparation in bounded steps
- Manual: the founder selects the source cutoff, relevant issues, authorized audience and reviewers.
- User-triggered: ask Aurora to assemble the source-to-decision board and list discrepancies without resolving them.
- Manual: data owners approve definitions, versions and corrections, or leave a fact held.
- User-triggered: draft a concise pre-read from accepted facts and the founder's actual questions.
- Manual: inspect the draft, restricted material, recipient access and final export.
- Separately authorized: share through the permitted path and retain the actual version and receipt.
After the meeting, a reviewed working note can support follow-through. It is not automatically the board's official minutes. Use your company's process for official records, approvals and confidential sessions. A useful assistant does not decide which governance requirements apply.
Use Finta for the available context
Aurora can prepare a brief or working document from the material and supported connections available to the intended user. Finta CRM can retain relevant relationship and next-action context where appropriate. Neither statement proves a native board-portal feature, complete document coverage or a successful test of this recipe.
Confirm the intended organization and source scope. An agent profile does not grant access to another person's private account. Keep this exercise draft-only; creating a role or schedule does not authorize disclosure, board communication or a change to a source record.
Copyable practice prompt
Try this with Aurora AI in Finta, Claude or Codex using approved excerpts.
Prepare a board-review packet from [approved operating sources and cutoff], [reviewed prior commitments] and [founder questions]. Return a source-to-decision table, conflicting definitions/versions, missing evidence and a short draft pre-read. Preserve actual-versus-forecast labels, periods, units and denominators. Do not equate trials with customers or prepared work with completed commitments. Keep restricted material out unless explicitly permitted for this task and audience. Mark unresolved items with their human owner. Do not make board decisions, certify governance, create official minutes, change records, share documents or contact anyone. End with the final version, audience and reviewer checks still needed.Finish with the decision still visible
Approve the packet only when each material statement is sourced or explicitly unresolved, the founder can explain the questions and the intended recipients can access only the permitted version. Keep broader meeting preparation and reviewed meeting follow-through as their separate tasks. This recipe succeeds when preparation exposes the question the people need to decide.
Sources checked October 22, 2026. The linked Finta pages and Sequoia article provide documented context. The preparation board, role allocation and CivicBoard example are original educational materials, not customer results, measured time savings or legal/governance advice.