AI meeting preparation and pre-meeting research
The workflow prepares a meeting brief from permitted Outlook, Teams and SharePoint history, alongside cited public research. It brings together the meeting purpose, relevant commitments, open actions and questions; the meeting owner checks the sources and content before using it.
This suits meetings that require a quick review of past correspondence, project history and current public information: client reviews, supplier escalations, partner discussions and project governance meetings. A useful first pilot has a clear owner, a repeated briefing format and relevant history to check.
The brief gives the meeting owner the purpose, decision required, permitted history, open actions and cited public facts in one place. It separates facts from suggestions and highlights when the available material is thin or contradictory.
An agreed calendar event starts preparation at the chosen lead time. The workflow reads only the permitted history, checks the named public sources and builds the briefing in the agreed format. Sources stay linked, gaps remain visible and the meeting owner removes irrelevant material and checks the claims before use.
Attenta defines the meeting type, trigger time, internal source boundaries, public research list, briefing template, reviewer and deletion rules. The pilot tests strong and limited meeting history, duplicate names, old company facts and inaccessible documents. The handover records the connected sources, citation method and when the workflow should report that there is not enough information.
Yes, where the Microsoft licence and company policy allow it. Microsoft states that meeting preparation summarises related content the signed-in user may access, and different attendees can receive different summaries because their permissions differ. A tailored workflow can add a fixed briefing format and cited public research without opening access to unrelated client or company information.
Official guidance: Microsoft guidance on preparing for meetings with Copilot.
Every public claim keeps the page, publisher and date it came from. Internal summaries link back to the permitted email, meeting or file. Missing and conflicting information is shown rather than completed. AI can suggest a fact, connection or question, but the meeting owner accepts, edits or rejects it before using it in a conversation or project record.
Good fit
Boundaries
FAQ
Yes, using lawful public sources and any internal material the user is allowed to access. The output should retain citations and clearly mark uncertainty or conflicting information.
Only where the client authorises the source, user and workflow. Internal and public research can be separated when the data boundary requires it.
Microsoft 365 Copilot provides meeting-preparation capabilities inside supported Microsoft applications. A tailored workflow may add structured public research, client templates and review steps around those capabilities.
No. The workflow should use official sites, Companies House, government and planning records, published project sources and other lawful public pages without bypassing access controls.
It may be. Microsoft 365 content follows the signed-in user's existing permissions, so two people can have access to different related emails, chats or files. The pilot defines who the briefing is for and does not assume one person's access can be copied to another.
The briefing should say that the related internal material is limited and avoid filling the space with generic claims. It can still present verified public facts and a list of questions, but the meeting owner should see the limitation clearly.
The source list is agreed for the use case. It may include official company sites, Companies House, GOV.UK, planning or regulatory records and official project pages. Restricted sources, access-control bypasses and unsupported search snippets stay outside the workflow.