Skip to content

What is a board ontology?

Every profession has a small set of things it actually produces. Accountants produce ledgers, journals and statements, and every number in a set of accounts is one of those things, with the same rules applied whoever prepared it. That shared, written structure is what lets one accountant pick up another’s work without starting again.

Boards never had one. Quorums wrote it.

The definition

A board ontology is a fixed, written account of the kinds of thing a board cares about, what each one is made of, how they relate to one another, and which words in board language bring them into existence. Think of it as the grammar of the boardroom. Once you have it, every pack, minute and transcript can be read the same way, by anyone, for as long as the board exists.

Five kinds of record

Quorums recognises exactly five kinds of thing in the record of a board. Not a flexible taxonomy, not “whatever seems relevant”. Five.

Decision

Something the board resolved. Date, body, exact wording, and any condition attached. “Agreed in principle, subject to” is a decision with a condition, and the condition is a field.

Action

Something somebody undertook to do. Owner, due point where stated, and the item that gave rise to it. “I’ll circulate the numbers by Friday” is an action, whether or not anyone said the word.

Risk

Something the board identified as capable of harming the company. The meeting it first appeared in and every meeting it has reappeared in since.

Open question

Something the board asked and did not resolve. The wording, the date, and whether a later meeting answered it.

Metric

A number the board was shown. Value, unit, period, and the place in the document it came from. Unmatched to its source, it is marked unverified.

One kind of observation

Everything above is what the documents say happened. Sitting alongside the record is a second channel: what Quorums noticed about it. A risk that has not moved in four meetings. An action with no owner. A number that disagrees with an earlier one. The detail a good chair spots and returns to. These are watch flags, and they are the only thing in Quorums marked in gold.

Watch flag

An observation about the record, never part of it. The record is evidence. A watch flag is a point worth a second look. They never mix, and you can always see which is which.

The rules of the language

This is the part a general-purpose model cannot do consistently. Boards have a vocabulary, and the vocabulary is what creates the record.

“Noted” creates nothing. “Approved” creates a decision. “Agreed in principle” creates a decision with a condition. “The CEO undertook to” creates an action with an owner. A chair knows all this instinctively. Quorums knows it as written rules, and applies them the same way to every document.

The difference matters because a chatbot also knows these words. What it does not have is a rule set it is bound by. Ask it twice and you may get two different answers about whether “the board noted the recommendation” was a decision. Ask Quorums twice and you get the same answer, and you can read the rule that produced it.

Why this cannot be a feature of a chatbot

A general-purpose model has a world model: a rough, impressive sense of what a decision or a risk usually is. An ontology is domain specific: it says what kinds of thing exist, what they are called, how they relate, and it lets the system reason over those relationships rather than match words on a page. It is a shared, unambiguous layer of meaning, not a pile of text. An ontology is a commitment.

That distinction is not academic. Because the five kinds of record are fixed, we can run every change to the system against a frozen set of board documents and count the errors. When a newer model asserted fourteen things as record that were not in the documents, the ontology is what let us count to fourteen. Without a fixed definition of a decision there is nothing to count against, and “it seemed pretty good” is the only quality measure available.

What it does for you

A decision in the March pack and a decision in the September pack are the same kind of thing and can be laid side by side. A metric from five packs is five comparable figures, not five paragraphs. An action can be followed from the moment someone undertook it to the moment it was done, or the moment it quietly vanished. Across every board you sit on, the same question gets the same kind of answer.

And every one of those things points at the sentence it came from. The ontology tells Quorums what to look for. The evidence tells you it found it.

The short version

Boards never had a written grammar. Quorums has one. Five kinds of record, one kind of observation, the rules of the language that create them, and a sentence of evidence behind each. That is a board ontology, and it is the reason a purpose-built system beats a brilliant generalist in the room.

Why not just use Claude?

The ontology is one of five reasons. The other four are on the page that asks the question directly.

Read why Quorums sits on top of Claude

Worth a conversation?

The first conversation is exactly that: a conversation about your boards, not a sales call.

Request a conversation