# Executive Writing

> Use when writing for executives — board memos, strategy one-pagers, decision briefs, exec review documents, investment memos, or any artifact that must be read and acted on by VPs, C-suite, or board members. Encodes Minto Pyramid, audience calibration by executive role, decision architecture, and zero-jargon compression. Produces executive-ready documents, not summaries.

- Skill: `avyayalaya/executive-writing` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add avyayalaya/executive-writing`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/avyayalaya/executive-writing/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- License: MIT
- Author: Avyayalaya (https://skillmd.com/u/avyayalaya)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/avyayalaya/executive-writing

---


## Purpose

Produce an executive-ready document — strategy one-pager, board memo, or decision brief — that a VP, C-suite exec, or board member can read and act on without a guided walkthrough. The output encodes Minto Pyramid structure, role-calibrated framing, decision architecture, and zero-jargon compression into a document that a PM cannot produce at this quality unaided.

## When to Use / When NOT to Use

**Use this skill when:**
- Writing a strategy one-pager for executive alignment on a direction
- Preparing a board or exec review memo to be read asynchronously before a meeting
- Drafting a decision brief that must produce a decision in a meeting
- Framing an investment memo, product strategy, or resource allocation request for C-suite approval
- Translating an existing analysis (competitive war map, metric design, spec) into exec-readable format
- Any situation where the reader is a VP+ and the document must produce action, not just comprehension

**Do NOT use this skill when:**
- You need the analysis itself (use Competitive Market Analysis, Metric Design, or Problem Framing first — then run this skill to package the output)
- The audience is your engineering team or direct reports (write a spec or PRD instead)
- You need a presentation deck (this produces written documents, not slides — though the structure translates)
- The "executive" is actually a working-level PM who wants detail (give them the full analysis)
- You need a project status update (use a dashboard or status template, not a strategic document)

**Anti-inputs (what this skill does NOT handle):**
- Generating the underlying analysis or evidence (this skill packages existing insight, it does not create it)
- Slide deck design or visual presentation (document structure only)
- Meeting facilitation or talking points (the document stands alone — if it needs a presenter, it failed)
- Organizational communication (all-hands, change management, team announcements)

---

## Context Gate (Step -1)

Before writing anything, verify that an executive document is the right artifact. Answer these four questions:

| Check | Question | If No |
|-------|----------|-------|
| **Artifact fit** | Does this situation require a written document read by executives? | If the exec prefers a 5-minute verbal brief, write talking points instead. If the exec wants a dashboard, build a dashboard. Match the exec's consumption mode. |
| **Analysis readiness** | Do you have a clear recommendation backed by evidence? | If you don't have a recommendation yet, run Problem Framing or Competitive Analysis first. An executive document without a recommendation is an information dump (FM-1). |
| **Decision authority** | Does the reader have the authority to act on the Ask? | If not, you're writing to the wrong person. Identify the decision-maker and calibrate for them. |
| **Timing** | Is this the right moment for this document? | If the decision isn't ripe (missing data, org not ready, dependencies unresolved), say so. Premature documents waste executive attention. |

**If all four pass:** Proceed to Step 0.
**If any fail:** Address the gap before writing. A document sent to the wrong person, at the wrong time, without a recommendation, is worse than no document.

---

## Reader Navigation

### How to Read This Skill

| Time | What to read |
|------|-------------|
| **5 min** | Purpose, Format Rules, Step 0 routing table, Output Template for your document type |
| **15 min** | Add: Domain Frameworks 1-3 (Format Routing, Minto Pyramid, Audience Calibration) + Failure Modes |
| **30 min** | Full skill — all frameworks, Quality Gradients, Worked Example |

| Role | Start here |
|------|-----------|
| **PM writing for their VP** | Step 0 routing → Strategy One-Pager template → Audience Calibration (Framework 3) |
| **PM writing for the CEO/board** | Step 0 routing → Board Memo template → Minto Pyramid (Framework 2) + Evidence Cascade (Framework 7) |
| **PM facilitating a decision meeting** | Step 0 routing → Decision Brief template → Decision Architecture (Framework 4) |
| **PM reviewing someone else's exec doc** | Quality Gate (Framework 8) → Failure Modes → Evaluation Criteria |

### Notation Key

| Symbol | Meaning |
|--------|---------|
| **H / M / L** | Confidence level: H (>70%), M (40-70%), L (<40%) |
| **(T1)-(T6)** | Evidence tier: T1 = behavioral data, T6 = punditry/inference |
| **O→I→R→C→W** | Observation → Implication → Response → Confidence → Watch Indicator |
| **SCR** | Situation → Complication → Resolution (Minto Pyramid) |
| **[EVIDENCE-LIMITED]** | Key conclusion rests only on Tier 4-6 evidence |
| **[POTENTIALLY STALE]** | Claim based on data older than 6 months |
| **FM-N** | Failure Mode number N |

---

## Format Rules (Read First)

These rules govern every output produced by this codex. They are non-negotiable quality enforcement mechanisms.

1. **Answer first, evidence second.** The recommendation or key message appears in the first paragraph, not the last. An executive who reads only the first 10 seconds gets the answer. Evidence follows to support, not to build suspense. Burying the lead is the most common executive writing failure.

2. **Take positions. Never hedge with weasel words.** "Likely," "may," "could," and "seems" are banned from recommendations. Flag uncertainty with explicit confidence levels: **H (>70% confident)**, **M (40-70%)**, **L (<40%)**. Example: *"We should invest $2M in enterprise security features (H)"* not *"We may want to consider increasing security investment."*

3. **Every document ends with an explicit Ask.** No exceptions. If the document doesn't ask the reader to decide, align, or provide input, it is an information dump (FM-1). The Ask is specific, time-bound, and actionable.

4. **Zero-jargon in the executive-facing body.** Framework names, acronyms, and technical terms get plain-language translations on first use. Maximum 5 acronyms per document. The "grandmother test": could a smart non-technical person follow the argument?

5. **Evidence compressed to the right level.** Headlines get one stat + one implication. Body gets 2-3 supporting data points with source and confidence. Full methodology goes in the appendix. Never put appendix-level evidence in the body — it signals "I don't know what matters" (FM-9).

6. **Options are genuinely different.** When presenting options, each must differ on at least one structural dimension (cost, risk, timeline, scope). If two options are variations of the same thing, merge them. Always 2-4 options. One option = mandate. Five+ options = indecision.

7. **Risks are real or omitted.** "Risk: adoption may be slow. Mitigation: we'll monitor and adjust" says nothing (FM-8). State the specific scenario, its probability, its impact, and the concrete mitigation. If you can't do this, the risk isn't understood well enough to include.

8. **Framework references get one-line explanations.** First mention of any framework or model includes a plain-language description of why it matters for this specific decision. "Using the Minto Pyramid structure (answer first, then supporting logic — because this exec reads 40+ documents a week and skips anything that doesn't lead with the point)."

9. **The document must be navigable by someone who didn't write it.** A colleague picking up this document cold must be able to extract the recommendation, the options, and the ask without reading front to back. Headers are conclusions, not labels. Bold the mechanism, not the entity.

---

## Output Template (Mandatory Document Skeleton)

Three templates — one per document type. Step 0 selects which to use. Copy the selected skeleton and fill it in.

### Template A: Strategy One-Pager

```markdown
# [Title — Conclusion as Header, Not Topic]

> **Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD] | **Author:** [Name] | **For:** [Audience role + name] | **Ask type:** [Decision / Alignment / Input]

---

## Situation (2-3 sentences)

[What's true today that everyone agrees on. Establish common ground. No new information — just shared reality.]

## Complication (2-3 sentences)

[What changed, what broke, or what opportunity emerged. This is the tension that demands action.]

## Strategic Options

### Option 1: [Name — verb phrase, not noun]
[2-3 sentences. What we'd do, what it costs, what it achieves.]
- **Upside:** [Specific benefit with magnitude]
- **Risk:** [Specific risk with probability and impact]
- **Timeline:** [When we'd see results]

### Option 2: [Name]
[Same structure]

### Option 3: [Name] *(if applicable)*
[Same structure]

**Recommendation:** [State the recommended option clearly. Include confidence level (H/M/L) and the key assumption driving it.]

## Key Risks

| Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation |
|------|:-----------:|:------:|------------|
| [Specific scenario] | H/M/L | [Quantified if possible] | [Concrete action] |

## The Ask

[What you need from the reader. By when. What happens if delayed.]

---

*Appendix available on request: [list what's available — full analysis, data tables, sensitivity analysis]*
```

### Template B: Board / Exec Review Memo

```markdown
# [Title — Strategic Conclusion as Header]

> **Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD] | **Author:** [Name] | **For:** [Board / Exec Team / specific role] | **Read time:** [X min] | **Ask type:** [Decision / Alignment / Input]

---

## TL;DR (3 bullets max)

- [Bullet 1: The situation in one sentence]
- [Bullet 2: The recommendation in one sentence]
- [Bullet 3: The ask in one sentence]

---

## Situation

[2-3 paragraphs. What's true, what the market looks like, where we are. Only include context the reader needs to understand the complication. Not a comprehensive background — just enough to ground what follows.]

## Complication

[1-2 paragraphs. What changed. What's at stake. Why this requires executive attention now, not next quarter.]

## Resolution: [State the Recommendation]

[2-3 paragraphs. The recommended course of action. Why this option over others. What it costs, what it achieves, and by when.]

**Confidence:** [H/M/L] — assumes [key assumption]

## Evidence

### [Evidence Theme 1 — Insight as Header]

[2-3 data points with source and evidence tier. One implication per paragraph.]

### [Evidence Theme 2]

[Same structure]

### [Evidence Theme 3] *(if needed)*

[Same structure]

## Options Considered

| Option | Description | Pros | Cons | Cost | Risk |
|--------|-------------|------|------|:----:|:----:|
| **[Recommended]** | [2 sentences] | [Key pro] | [Key con] | [$$] | H/M/L |
| [Alternative 1] | [2 sentences] | [Key pro] | [Key con] | [$$] | H/M/L |
| [Alternative 2] | [2 sentences] | [Key pro] | [Key con] | [$$] | H/M/L |

## Risks

| Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation | Owner |
|------|:-----------:|:------:|------------|-------|
| [Scenario 1] | H/M/L | [$$$ or strategic] | [Concrete action] | [Name/team] |
| [Scenario 2] | H/M/L | [$$$ or strategic] | [Concrete action] | [Name/team] |

## Assumption Registry

| # | Assumption | Confidence | Evidence | What Would Invalidate |
|---|-----------|:----------:|---------|----------------------|
| 1 | [Load-bearing assumption] | H/M/L | [Source (TX)] | [Observable signal] |
| 2 | | | | |
| 3 | | | | |

## The Ask

[What you need. By when. What happens if delayed. What the next step is if approved.]

---

## Appendix *(separate page)*

[Full data tables, methodology, sensitivity analysis, detailed competitor data, source list with evidence tiers. Executives read this only if challenged or curious.]

## Adversarial Self-Critique

**Weakness 1: [Title]**
[What assumption is being made? What evidence would disprove it? Scenario where this recommendation is wrong.]

**Weakness 2: [Title]**
[Same depth]

**Weakness 3: [Title]**
[Same depth]

## Revision Triggers

| Trigger | What to Re-Assess | Timeline |
|---------|-------------------|----------|
| [Observable event] | [Which sections break] | [When to check] |
```

### Template C: Decision Brief

```markdown
# Decision: [State the Decision in One Sentence]

> **Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD] | **Decision owner:** [Name/role] | **Meeting:** [Date, duration] | **Deadline:** [When the decision must be made]

---

## Decision Statement

[One paragraph. What must be decided. Why now. What happens if we don't decide.]

## Context (4-5 sentences max)

[Only what's needed to evaluate the options. Not a comprehensive background. If the reader needs more, link to the appendix.]

## Options

### Option A: [Name — verb phrase]

[2-3 sentences. What we'd do.]

| Dimension | Assessment |
|-----------|-----------|
| **Cost** | [$$, headcount, opportunity cost] |
| **Timeline** | [When we'd see results] |
| **Risk** | [H/M/L — specific scenario] |
| **Reversibility** | [Easy to reverse / Hard to reverse / One-way door] |
| **Key tradeoff** | [What we give up by choosing this] |

### Option B: [Name]

[Same structure]

### Option C: [Name] *(if applicable)*

[Same structure]

## Recommendation

**[State the recommended option.]** Confidence: [H/M/L].

**Why this option:** [2-3 sentences — the decisive factor]
**Key assumption:** [The single assumption that, if wrong, changes the recommendation]
**What's reversible:** [What we can undo if wrong]
**What's not:** [What we can't undo — the irreversible commitment]

## What We Need from This Meeting

- [ ] **Decision:** [Approve Option X / Choose between A and B / Provide direction on Z]
- [ ] **By:** [Date]
- [ ] **If not decided:** [Consequence — delay cost, missed window, blocked dependency]

---

*Supporting analysis: [link or "available on request"]*
```

**Rules for using these templates:**
1. **Do not skip sections.** If a section isn't applicable, write "Not applicable — [reason]" and move on.
2. **Headers are conclusions, not labels.** Replace generic headers (e.g., "Market Analysis") with insight headers (e.g., "We're Losing Enterprise Deals on Security, Not Features") after completing the section.
3. **The TL;DR / Executive Summary is written last** but appears first. Do not write it until all sections are complete.
4. **Bold the mechanism, not the entity.** "Google's investment is **$4-6B annually** in TPUs" not "**Google** is investing in TPUs."
5. **Every table cell with a risk rating must include a specific scenario**, not just H/M/L.

---

## Domain Frameworks

> This section IS the knowledge weapon. Each framework is encoded with its decision tables, scoring rubrics, and application methodology — not merely referenced. A PM using this skill produces executive documents that encode these frameworks; without them, the output degrades to generic summaries.

### Framework 1: Format Routing (Step 0)

Before writing a word of content, select the document format. Wrong format = wrong output, regardless of content quality.

**Routing Table:**

| Signal in the request | Document type | Why |
|----------------------|---------------|-----|
| "Need alignment on direction" / "strategy review" / "where should we go" | **Strategy One-Pager** | Exec needs to agree on a direction, not make a specific choice. One page forces compression. |
| "Board meeting" / "exec review" / "need to present the case" / "read-ahead" | **Board/Exec Review Memo** | Async consumption before a meeting. Must stand alone. Comprehensive but structured. |
| "Need a decision by Friday" / "approve this" / "choose between" / "go/no-go" | **Decision Brief** | A specific decision must happen. Options must be comparable. Meeting-optimized. |
| "Investment memo" / "funding request" / "resource allocation" | **Board Memo** (with financial emphasis) | SCR structure with evidence cascade and ROI framing. |
| "Quick update for leadership" | **None — use a status template instead** | This skill is for strategic documents, not status updates. Redirect. |

**Decision table — format selection:**

| Dimension | Strategy One-Pager | Board Memo | Decision Brief |
|-----------|:------------------:|:----------:|:--------------:|
| **Page count** | 1 (strict) | 3-5 | 1-2 |
| **Read time** | 2-3 min | 10-15 min | 5-7 min |
| **Ask type** | Alignment | Alignment or Decision | Decision |
| **Options presented** | 2-3 with recommendation | 2-4 with full analysis | 2-3 with tradeoff matrix |
| **Evidence depth** | Headline only | Level 1 + Level 2 | Level 1 + selected Level 2 |
| **Best when** | Time-constrained exec needs to decide or align | Exec will read before a meeting, or as decision record | Group of execs must align on a choice in a meeting |
| **Worst when** | Complex multi-stakeholder decision needing full analysis | Quick decision that doesn't warrant 5 pages | No clear options exist yet |

**Scoring rubric — did you pick the right format?**

| Rating | Criteria |
|--------|---------|
| **Correct** | Format matches the exec's consumption mode, the decision's complexity, and the meeting context |
| **Suboptimal** | Format works but adds friction — e.g., a 5-page memo for a decision that needed a one-pager |
| **Wrong** | Format actively hinders the goal — e.g., a one-pager for a board meeting that needed a full evidence trail |

---

### Framework 2: Minto Pyramid / SCR Structure

Barbara Minto's Pyramid Principle is the backbone of executive communication. The structure: answer first, then grouped supporting arguments, then evidence. Executives read top-down and stop when convinced. Structure accordingly.

**The SCR Framework (Situation-Complication-Resolution):**

| Element | Purpose | Length | Common failure |
|---------|---------|--------|---------------|
| **Situation** | Establish common ground. What's true today that everyone agrees on. | 2-3 sentences | Too long — becoming a history lesson instead of shared context |
| **Complication** | Create tension. What changed, broke, or emerged. | 2-3 sentences | Too vague — "the market is changing" (everything is always changing) |
| **Resolution** | Deliver the answer. Your recommendation. | 1-2 sentences | Buried on page 4 instead of stated up front |

**Decision table — when to use SCR vs. other structures:**

| Structure | When to use | When NOT to use |
|-----------|------------|----------------|
| **SCR (Minto)** | Default for all exec communication. Especially: strategy docs, memos, recommendations | When the exec already knows the situation (skip S, go straight to CR) |
| **SCQA (add Question)** | When you want to explicitly frame the question before answering. Board presentations. | When the question is obvious from the complication |
| **Lead with Ask** | When the exec's time is under 2 minutes. Slack messages, email subject lines. | When the exec needs context to evaluate the ask |
| **Narrative build-up** | Almost never for executives. Maybe for a keynote speech. | Any written document for a time-constrained reader |

**The Pyramid Structure (below the SCR):**

```
                    RESOLUTION (answer)
                   /         |         \
          Argument 1    Argument 2    Argument 3
          /    |   \      /  |  \       /  |  \
       E1.1 E1.2 E1.3  E2.1 E2.2    E3.1 E3.2
```

**Rules for the pyramid:**
- **MECE at every level.** Arguments under the resolution are Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive. No overlap. No gaps.
- **Each argument is one idea.** If an argument contains "and," it's two arguments.
- **Evidence supports its argument, not the resolution directly.** Don't jump from evidence to conclusion without the intermediate argument.
- **Maximum 3-4 arguments per level.** More than 4 signals the argument isn't structured.

**Scoring rubric — SCR quality:**

| Rating | Symbol | Criteria |
|--------|--------|---------|
| **Strong** | Pass | Situation is shared context (2-3 sentences), Complication creates genuine tension, Resolution is stated in the first paragraph of the document |
| **Moderate** | Partial | SCR structure present but Situation is too long, or Complication is generic, or Resolution appears on page 2 |
| **Weak** | Fail | No discernible SCR — document reads as a data dump that builds to a conclusion buried at the end |

---

### Framework 3: Audience Calibration by Executive Role

The same information must be framed differently depending on who reads it. A product investment framed for a CEO emphasizes strategic fit. The same investment framed for a CFO emphasizes unit economics. Sending a CEO-framed document to a CFO is FM-6 (Single-Audience Document).

**Role calibration matrix:**

| Dimension | CEO | CFO | CTO / CPO | Board |
|-----------|-----|-----|-----------|-------|
| **Primary lens** | Strategic fit, market position | Unit economics, ROI timeline | Technical feasibility, capacity | Market size, competitive moat |
| **Opens with** | "This positions us to..." | "The ROI is X over Y months..." | "This requires N engineers for M months..." | "The market opportunity is $XB..." |
| **Evidence they trust** | Market signals, competitive moves, customer sentiment | Financial models, cost structures, payback periods | Architecture reviews, prototype data, team assessments | Revenue growth, margin trajectory, governance risk |
| **Risk framing** | Competitive risk (what happens if we don't) | Financial risk (downside scenarios, sensitivity analysis) | Execution risk (technical complexity, team capacity, dependencies) | Governance risk (regulatory, reputational, concentration) |
| **Ask framing** | "Align on this direction" | "Approve this investment of $X" | "Commit N engineers for M months" | "Approve the strategic direction + funding" |
| **Kills the document** | No strategic vision, just tactics | No financial model, just qualitative benefits | No technical feasibility assessment | No competitive context, no risk disclosure |

**Example — Same investment, four frames:**

| Role | Opening line |
|------|-------------|
| **CEO** | "Investing $2M in enterprise security positions us to win the $500M mid-market segment that Competitor X is about to enter — this is a 12-month window before their SOC2 certification completes (H)." |
| **CFO** | "A $2M investment in enterprise security unlocks $8M ARR from 40 enterprise accounts currently blocked by our SOC2 gap — 4x ROI within 18 months, payback at month 9 (H)." |
| **CTO** | "Enterprise security requires 4 engineers for 6 months: SOC2 certification (3 months), encryption at rest (2 months), audit logging (1 month). No new hires needed — reallocate from the analytics team post-v3 launch (M)." |
| **Board** | "Our SOC2 gap is the #1 reason enterprise deals stall. Closing it unlocks a $500M mid-market segment where we have no credentialed competitor. Investment: $2M. Risk: execution timeline (M). Governance: SOC2 audit firm engaged, timeline 6 months (H)." |

**Multi-audience calibration (when the document goes to several roles):**
- Lead with the decision-maker's frame
- Include a "perspectives" section with 2-3 sentence frames for each stakeholder
- Put role-specific detail in clearly labeled subsections or the appendix
- The TL;DR must work for ALL readers — which means zero jargon and the decision stated plainly

**Scoring rubric — audience calibration:**

| Rating | Symbol | Criteria |
|--------|--------|---------|
| **Strong** | Pass | Document's framing matches the reader's decision criteria. Evidence types align with what this role trusts. Ask is appropriate to this role's authority. |
| **Moderate** | Partial | Correct role addressed, but some evidence is wrong type (e.g., qualitative benefits for CFO, no financial model) |
| **Weak** | Fail | Generic framing — reads like it was written for "any executive" with no role-specific calibration |

---

### Framework 4: Decision Architecture

How you structure choices determines how executives process them. Bad option architecture produces bad decisions — not because the analysis is wrong, but because the options aren't structured for decision-making.

**Type 1 vs. Type 2 Decisions (Bezos Framework):**

| Dimension | Type 1 (One-Way Door) | Type 2 (Two-Way Door) |
|-----------|:---------------------:|:---------------------:|
| **Reversibility** | Irreversible or extremely costly to reverse | Easily reversible |
| **Evidence bar** | High — need strong data before committing | Lower — can course-correct |
| **Options needed** | 3-4 with full tradeoff analysis | 2 with clear recommendation |
| **Approval level** | Senior leadership / board | Direct manager / team lead |
| **Decision speed** | Deliberate — days to weeks | Fast — hours to days |
| **Document format** | Board Memo or Decision Brief | Strategy One-Pager or email |
| **Examples** | Major acquisition, market exit, org restructure, pricing model change | Feature prioritization, vendor selection, hiring one role |

**Decision table — Type 1 vs. Type 2 routing:**

| Signal | Classification | Implication for document |
|--------|:-------------:|------------------------|
| "We can't undo this" / major financial commitment | Type 1 | Full Board Memo. 3-4 options. Sensitivity analysis. Reversibility analysis per option. |
| "We can always change course" / experiment-scale | Type 2 | Strategy One-Pager or Decision Brief. 2 options. Clear recommendation. Speed > completeness. |
| "Parts are reversible, parts aren't" | **Hybrid** | Separate the reversible from the irreversible. Seek approval for the irreversible parts. Delegate the reversible parts. |

**Option Architecture Rules:**

| Rule | Why | Anti-pattern |
|------|-----|-------------|
| **Always 2-4 options** | 1 option = you're asking for rubber-stamp approval (execs resent this). 5+ = you haven't done the work to narrow. | "Here's what I recommend" with no alternatives |
| **Options differ structurally** | Options that differ only on scope or timeline are the same option at different dosages. Each option must differ on at least one fundamental dimension. | Option A: build it. Option B: build half of it. Option C: build a third of it. |
| **Include "do nothing"** | The status quo is always an option. Executives need to understand the cost of inaction, not just the cost of action. | Presenting only action options when inaction is viable |
| **Name the irreversible commitment** | Every option has a point of no return. Name it explicitly. | "Low risk" without specifying what can't be undone |
| **State the recommendation** | Executives want your judgment, not just options. If you can't recommend, state why and what information would unlock the recommendation. | "Here are three options for your consideration" (no recommendation) |

**Tradeoff Matrix (mandatory for Decision Briefs):**

| Dimension | Option A | Option B | Option C |
|-----------|:--------:|:--------:|:--------:|
| **Cost** | [$X] | [$Y] | [$Z] |
| **Timeline** | [N months] | [N months] | [N months] |
| **Risk** | [H/M/L + scenario] | [H/M/L + scenario] | [H/M/L + scenario] |
| **Reversibility** | [Easy/Hard/One-way] | | |
| **Strategic fit** | [H/M/L] | | |
| **Key tradeoff** | [What you give up] | [What you give up] | [What you give up] |

**Scoring rubric — decision architecture:**

| Rating | Symbol | Criteria |
|--------|--------|---------|
| **Strong** | Pass | 2-4 structurally different options, clear recommendation with confidence, Type 1/2 classification stated, irreversible commitments named, "do nothing" considered |
| **Moderate** | Partial | Options present but not structurally different, or recommendation stated without confidence level |
| **Weak** | Fail | Single option presented as fait accompli, or 5+ options without clear recommendation, or no reversibility analysis |

---

### Framework 5: Zero-Jargon Compression

Making complex analysis readable by non-specialists is a skill, not an afterthought. Every executive document passes through this compression layer.

**The Compression Protocol (apply to every section):**

| Step | Action | Test |
|------|--------|------|
| 1. **Grandmother test** | Read each sentence aloud. Would a smart non-technical person understand it? | If you need to define a term for the reader, the term shouldn't be in the body. Define it once, then abbreviate. |
| 2. **Framework translation** | Replace framework names with what they reveal. | Not: "Minto Pyramid structure." Instead: "answer first, then supporting evidence — because this exec reads 40 documents a week." |
| 3. **Metric translation** | Replace metric names with what they measure in human terms. | Not: "NPS declined 12 points." Instead: "Customer satisfaction dropped sharply — 12% fewer customers would recommend us (NPS, a standard measure of customer loyalty)." |
| 4. **Acronym discipline** | Max 5 acronyms per document. Spell out on first use. | If you've used 6+ acronyms, cut the least essential ones and spell them out every time. |
| 5. **Evidence compression** | One stat + one implication per paragraph. | Not: "Revenue was $12M (up 15% YoY), margins were 42% (up from 38%), and customer count reached 1,200 (up 22%)." Instead: "Revenue grew 15% to $12M — driven by 22% more customers, with margins expanding to 42% as unit economics improved." |
| 6. **The "so what" test** | Every paragraph must answer "so what does this mean for us?" | If a paragraph describes facts without stating their implication, add the implication or delete the paragraph. |

**Jargon Translation Table (common PM-to-exec translations):**

| PM Jargon | Executive Translation |
|-----------|----------------------|
| "Product-market fit" | "Customers want this and are willing to pay" |
| "Technical debt" | "Shortcuts from past builds that slow us down now — costs $X to fix" |
| "Network effects" | "The product gets more valuable as more people use it" |
| "Switching costs" | "How hard it is for customers to leave (and why they stay)" |
| "TAM/SAM/SOM" | "Total market: $XB. What we can actually reach: $YM. What we'll capture in [timeframe]: $ZM." |
| "Flywheel" | "A self-reinforcing cycle where each step makes the next step easier" |
| "Moat" | "What stops competitors from copying us" |
| "Churn" | "Customers leaving — X% per month" |
| "Counter-positioning" | "We can do something the incumbent can't copy without hurting their core business" |
| "COAP" | "When one part of the industry gets commoditized, profits shift to the adjacent part" |

**Compression by document type:**

| Format | Target word count | Compression level | What gets cut |
|--------|:-----------------:|:-----------------:|--------------|
| Strategy One-Pager | 400-600 words | Maximum | All supporting evidence moves to appendix. Body is SCR + options + ask only. |
| Board Memo | 1,200-2,000 words | High | Level 3 evidence moves to appendix. Body keeps Level 1 + Level 2 only. |
| Decision Brief | 500-800 words | Very high | Context compressed to 4-5 sentences. Evidence only where it differentiates options. |

**Scoring rubric — zero-jargon compression:**

| Rating | Symbol | Criteria |
|--------|--------|---------|
| **Strong** | Pass | No unexplained framework names, no unexplained acronyms, every paragraph has a "so what," word count within target |
| **Moderate** | Partial | Mostly jargon-free but 1-2 unexplained terms slip through, or slightly over word count |
| **Weak** | Fail | Multiple unexplained frameworks/acronyms, no "so what" on several paragraphs, significantly over word count |

---

### Framework 6: Ask Framing

The Ask is the most important section of any executive document. Everything else — the analysis, the options, the evidence — exists to support the Ask. A document without a clear Ask is an information dump that wastes executive attention.

**Three Ask Types:**

| Ask Type | When to Use | Structure | Example |
|----------|------------|-----------|---------|
| **Decision** | You need the exec to approve a specific course of action | "Approve [X]. Cost: [$]. Timeline: [T]. Next step if approved: [action]." | "Approve $2M investment in enterprise security. Next step: allocate 4 engineers starting April 1." |
| **Alignment** | You need the exec to agree with a strategic direction (not a specific action yet) | "Align on [direction]. This means [implication]. If aligned, next step: [planning action]." | "Align on prioritizing mid-market over enterprise for H2. If aligned, we'll bring a detailed plan by May 1." |
| **Input** | You need the exec's judgment to resolve an uncertainty before you can recommend | "We need your input on [question]. Options: [A/B]. Our leaning: [X]. Blocker if unresolved: [consequence]." | "Should we optimize for revenue growth or margin expansion in H2? Our leaning: growth. If unresolved by April 15, we can't finalize the hiring plan." |

**Ask Structure (mandatory components):**

| Component | Required | Purpose |
|-----------|:--------:|---------|
| **What you need** | Yes | Specific action: approve, align, decide, provide input |
| **By when** | Yes | Deadline. If no natural deadline, create one: "By our next exec sync on [date]" |
| **What happens if delayed** | Yes | Cost of inaction. Not punitive — informational. "If not decided by April 15, we miss the Q3 launch window." |
| **Next step if approved** | Yes (for Decision asks) | Shows you've thought past the decision. "If approved, [team] begins [action] on [date]." |
| **Who else needs to be involved** | Recommended | "This also requires CTO sign-off on the engineering allocation." |

**The Meeting Test:** If an exec reads this document and doesn't know what to do next, the Ask failed. Apply this test to every document before sending.

**Ask Placement Rules:**

| Document type | Ask placement |
|---------------|--------------|
| Strategy One-Pager | Last section. Labeled "The Ask." |
| Board Memo | Last section before appendix. Labeled "The Ask." Also previewed in the TL;DR. |
| Decision Brief | Last section. Labeled "What We Need from This Meeting." Formatted as a checklist. |

**Anti-patterns:**

| Anti-pattern | What it looks like | Why it fails |
|-------------|-------------------|-------------|
| **No Ask** | Document presents analysis but asks for nothing | Exec doesn't know why they read it. Information dump (FM-1). |
| **Vague Ask** | "We'd appreciate your thoughts" | Exec doesn't know what specific action to take. |
| **Buried Ask** | Ask appears on page 4 after comprehensive analysis | Exec stopped reading on page 2 (FM-4). |
| **Multi-Ask** | "Approve the budget AND the hiring plan AND the timeline AND the marketing strategy" | Execs approve one thing at a time. Split into separate documents or sequence the asks. |

**Scoring rubric — ask framing:**

| Rating | Symbol | Criteria |
|--------|--------|---------|
| **Strong** | Pass | Ask type is clear (decision/alignment/input), includes deadline, states cost of delay, next step if approved, one primary ask per document |
| **Moderate** | Partial | Ask is present but missing deadline or cost of delay |
| **Weak** | Fail | No explicit ask, or ask is vague ("thoughts appreciated"), or ask is buried after page 2 |

---

### Framework 7: Evidence Cascade for Executives

Executives consume evidence at different depths depending on their role, the stakes, and their trust in the author. Structure evidence in three levels so each reader gets what they need without wading through what they don't.

**Three Evidence Levels:**

| Level | What it contains | Where it appears | Who reads it |
|-------|-----------------|-----------------|-------------|
| **Level 1 (Headline)** | One sentence, one number, one implication | TL;DR, Executive Summary, SCR Complication | Everyone — this is the only level some execs read |
| **Level 2 (Summary)** | 2-3 supporting data points with source and confidence level | Document body, Evidence section | Execs who want to validate the argument before deciding |
| **Level 3 (Appendix)** | Full methodology, data tables, sensitivity analysis, source list | Appendix, separate document, "available on request" | Execs who are challenged on the recommendation, or analysts reviewing the work |

**Example — Same evidence at three levels:**

| Level | Phrasing |
|-------|---------|
| **L1** | "Enterprise churn doubled in Q4 — security gaps are the #1 cited reason (H)." |
| **L2** | "Enterprise churn increased from 3.2% to 6.8% in Q4 2025 (T1: internal data). Exit interviews cite security certifications as the primary reason in 14 of 22 cases (T2: structured interviews, N=22). Three lost deals worth $1.4M ARR explicitly named SOC2 absence (T1: CRM deal notes, verified by AE)." |
| **L3** | "[Full exit interview dataset, CRM export filtered to enterprise segment, SOC2 gap analysis vs. competitor certifications, timeline to certification by audit firm, sensitivity analysis on churn reduction post-certification]" |

**Decision table — which level goes where:**

| Document type | Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 |
|---------------|:-------:|:-------:|:-------:|
| Strategy One-Pager | In body | "On request" | Appendix link |
| Board Memo | In TL;DR | In body | In appendix |
| Decision Brief | In body | Only where it differentiates options | "On request" |

**Evidence tier tags (inline):**

Use the same tier system as other PM Skills Arsenal skills:

| Tier | Source Type | Weight |
|------|-----------|--------|
| **T1** | Direct behavioral data (what people DO) | Highest |
| **T2** | Primary research, credible methodology | High |
| **T3** | Expert analysis with disclosed reasoning | Medium-High |
| **T4** | Industry reports from reputable firms | Medium |
| **T5** | Executive statements and press releases | Low-Medium |
| **T6** | Punditry, blog posts, social media | Low |

**Rule:** Level 1 evidence (headline) must be T1-T3. If your strongest evidence for a key claim is T4-T6, flag the claim as `[EVIDENCE-LIMITED]` and state what T1-T2 evidence would strengthen it.

**Scoring rubric — evidence cascade:**

| Rating | Symbol | Criteria |
|--------|--------|---------|
| **Strong** | Pass | All three levels present and correctly placed. L1 in TL;DR is T1-T3. L3 is in appendix, not body. Every claim has an evidence tier tag. |
| **Moderate** | Partial | Levels present but L3 evidence appears in body (too detailed), or L1 evidence is T4+ (too weak for headline) |
| **Weak** | Fail | No level distinction — all evidence at same depth throughout. Or no evidence tier tags. |

---

### Framework 8: Document Quality Gate

A pre-submission checklist for executive documents. Run this before sending. Every check is pass/fail.

**The 10-Second Test:**
Hand the document to someone unfamiliar with the topic. After 10 seconds of reading:
- Can they state the recommendation? If not → SCR structure failed (FM-4: Ask Buried)
- Can they identify the Ask? If not → Ask Framing failed (FM-1: Information Dump)
- Can they identify the audience? If not → Audience Calibration failed (FM-6: Single-Audience)

**The One-Page Test:**
Could you cut this document to one page without losing the argument? If yes, it should probably BE one page. If no, the argument is complex enough to warrant a longer format. This test prevents FM-9 (30-Page Strategy Doc).

**Full Quality Gate Checklist:**

| # | Check | Pass/Fail |
|---|-------|-----------|
| 1 | **10-second test:** Can the reader extract the recommendation in 10 seconds? | |
| 2 | **Ask present:** Is there an explicit, time-bound, actionable Ask? | |
| 3 | **Audience calibrated:** Is the framing matched to the reader's role and decision criteria? | |
| 4 | **SCR structure:** Does the document lead with the answer (Resolution) and provide Situation/Complication as context? | |
| 5 | **Options genuine:** Are the options structurally different (not variations of the same thing)? | |
| 6 | **Jargon clean:** Zero unexplained frameworks, acronyms, or technical terms in the body? | |
| 7 | **Risks honest:** Are risks specific (scenario + probability + impact + mitigation), not generic? | |
| 8 | **Evidence leveled:** L1 in headlines, L2 in body, L3 in appendix — not mixed? | |
| 9 | **Word count:** Within target for the document type? | |
| 10 | **Reversibility stated:** For decision documents — is each option's reversibility 

…(truncated)