82% of directors have used generative AI in their board work in the past six months.
They are summarising board packs, preparing for discussions, benchmarking competitors and researching governance questions. They are doing this individually, often using consumer tools, often without company guidance and most likely without a formal policy governing how they do it.
This is not a deliberate oversight. Directors are using AI the same way they have always adopted new tools, instinctively and practically, before the governance frameworks around those tools have been formally established.
The question is what comes next. Individual directors experimenting with AI for personal preparation is the first stage of a journey that governance frameworks across every major financial services jurisdiction are now actively shaping.
The FCA, the JFSC, the BMA, the GFSC and MAS have all published guidance in 2026 that reaches the same conclusion: AI changes how work is done, not who is accountable for it.
The director who uses AI to prepare for a board meeting remains personally responsible for every judgment they exercise in that meeting.
That accountability is not a constraint on using AI well. It is the reason for using it well.
The governance conversation has two parts. The first, can we use AI, who is accountable, what are the risks, is now well understood by most professional directors. The second is the question boards are only beginning to reach. What does the AI we use actually rely on? Is it accurate? Is it current? Can we evidence that the output was grounded in verified information before it informed a decision?
On Wednesday the MyDirector-OS Journal examines that distinction, why it matters and what it means for professional directors in 2026.