# Executive Synthesis

> USE THIS SKILL when the user asks to create an executive summary, build a board presentation, write a board memo, design a strategy deck, synthesize findings into a deliverable, create a recommendation document, build a board-ready report, structure a presentation, or prepare C-suite communication. Trigger terms: "executive summary", "board presentation", "board memo", "strategy deck", "executive briefing", "board deck", "board-ready", "C-suite", "recommendation memo", "synthesis", "deliverable", "presentation structure", "pyramid principle", "SCR", "situation complication resolution", "one-pager", "decision document", "steering committee".

- Skill: `kaakati/executive-synthesis` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add kaakati/executive-synthesis`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/kaakati/executive-synthesis/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Docs & Writing
- Author: Kaakati (https://skillmd.com/u/kaakati)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/kaakati/executive-synthesis

---


# Executive Synthesis & Board-Ready Deliverables

Transform analysis into decision-enabling communication using Situation-Complication-Resolution narrative, Pyramid Principle, and structured deliverable templates for decks, memos, and executive summaries.

---

## Required Inputs

| Input | Description | Required? |
|---|---|---|
| Analysis / findings | The substantive content to synthesize | Yes |
| Audience | Who will read/see this (board, CEO, investors, SteerCo) | Yes |
| Decision required | What decision the audience needs to make | Yes |
| Deliverable format | Deck, memo, executive summary, or one-pager | Yes |
| Time constraint | How long the audience will spend (e.g., 10 min read, 30 min presentation) | Yes |
| Context level | How much context the audience already has (High/Medium/Low) | Recommended |
| Political sensitivities | Any topics requiring careful framing | If applicable |
| Brand / style guidelines | Formatting, tone, and style requirements | If applicable |
| Supporting data | Charts, models, and analysis outputs to reference | If available |

---

## Execution Steps

### Step 1: Audience and Decision Analysis

Before writing a single word, understand the communication context:

| Dimension | Assessment |
|---|---|
| **Primary audience** | [Role, seniority, decision authority] |
| **Secondary audience** | [Who else will see this? Forwarding risk?] |
| **Audience knowledge level** | [Expert / Familiar / Novice on this topic] |
| **Decision type** | [Approve/Reject / Choose between options / Allocate resources / Set direction] |
| **Decision stakes** | [Low (<$100K) / Medium ($100K-$10M) / High (>$10M) / Strategic] |
| **Audience preferences** | [Data-driven / Narrative / Visual / Bottom-line focused] |
| **Time available** | [5 min scan / 10 min read / 30 min presentation / 60 min deep dive] |
| **Tone** | [Formal / Consultative / Urgent / Collaborative] |

**Key rule**: The seniority of the audience determines the altitude of the content. Board = strategic; VP = tactical; Manager = operational. Never present operational detail to a strategic audience.

### Step 2: Structure the Narrative (SCR Framework)

Apply the Situation-Complication-Resolution framework:

**Situation** (establish common ground — what the audience already knows):
- Current state of the business or market
- Context that frames the discussion
- Should be non-controversial; the audience should nod along
- Maximum 2-3 sentences or 1 slide

**Complication** (create tension — what changed or what is at stake):
- The challenge, threat, opportunity, or decision that demands attention
- Why the status quo is insufficient or unsustainable
- Should create urgency without creating panic
- Maximum 2-3 sentences or 1 slide

**Resolution** (deliver the answer — the recommendation):
- The recommended action, strategy, or decision
- Must directly address the complication
- Presented with conviction, not hedging
- This is the FIRST thing the audience should see after context is set

**SCR test**: Read only the Situation, Complication, and Resolution. Does it tell a complete, compelling story in under 30 seconds? If not, simplify.

### Step 3: Apply the Pyramid Principle

Structure all content answer-first, then evidence:

```
Level 1: ANSWER / RECOMMENDATION
(The single most important thing the audience needs to know)
    │
    ├── Level 2: SUPPORTING ARGUMENT 1
    │   ├── Level 3: Evidence / Data point
    │   ├── Level 3: Evidence / Data point
    │   └── Level 3: Evidence / Data point
    │
    ├── Level 2: SUPPORTING ARGUMENT 2
    │   ├── Level 3: Evidence / Data point
    │   ├── Level 3: Evidence / Data point
    │   └── Level 3: Evidence / Data point
    │
    └── Level 2: SUPPORTING ARGUMENT 3
        ├── Level 3: Evidence / Data point
        ├── Level 3: Evidence / Data point
        └── Level 3: Evidence / Data point
```

**Pyramid rules**:
1. **Answer first**: State the conclusion before the analysis that supports it
2. **Group and summarize**: Group supporting points into 3-5 themes (not 12 bullets)
3. **Logical order**: Arguments flow in one of: time order, structural order, or importance order
4. **MECE**: Supporting arguments are Mutually Exclusive and Collectively Exhaustive
5. **So-what test**: Every data point must answer "so what does this mean for the decision?"

### Step 4: Apply the One Page = One Message Rule

Every page (slide or document section) must:

1. **Have one takeaway**: Expressed in the page title (assertion, not topic)
   - BAD title: "Market Overview"
   - GOOD title: "Market is growing at 15% CAGR driven by digital adoption"

2. **Support the takeaway**: All content on the page reinforces the title assertion

3. **Advance the narrative**: Each page logically follows from the previous and leads to the next

**Slide title test**: Read ONLY the titles of all slides in sequence. They should tell the complete story without seeing any slide content.

### Step 5: Build the Deliverable

Select the appropriate template based on format:

---

#### Template A: Strategy Deck (10-15 Slides)

| Slide # | Title Pattern | Content | Time (30 min) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Title slide | Project name, date, confidentiality | 0 min |
| 2 | Executive summary | SCR in one page; recommendation with key metrics | 2 min |
| 3 | Agenda / roadmap | What we will cover (orient the audience) | 1 min |
| 4 | Situation | Market context, current performance, starting position | 2 min |
| 5 | Complication | The challenge, gap, threat, or opportunity | 2 min |
| 6 | Recommendation overview | The proposed strategy / action (answer first) | 3 min |
| 7 | Supporting argument 1 | First pillar of the case with evidence | 3 min |
| 8 | Supporting argument 2 | Second pillar with evidence | 3 min |
| 9 | Supporting argument 3 | Third pillar with evidence | 3 min |
| 10 | Financial impact | Revenue, cost, ROI, or valuation impact | 3 min |
| 11 | Risks and mitigations | Top 3-5 risks with specific mitigations | 2 min |
| 12 | Implementation roadmap | Phased plan with milestones and owners | 2 min |
| 13 | Resource requirements | Team, budget, timeline | 2 min |
| 14 | Decision requested | Explicit ask: what do you want the audience to approve? | 2 min |
| 15 | Appendix | Supporting data, detailed analysis, methodology | Reference only |

**Slide design principles**:
- Maximum 5 bullet points per slide; maximum 2 lines per bullet
- One chart or table per slide (not both)
- Chart titles state the insight, not the chart type ("Revenue doubled" not "Revenue chart")
- Use annotation and callouts to highlight key data points
- Consistent color coding: green = good/target, red = risk/below target, blue = neutral

---

#### Template B: Executive Summary (1-2 Pages)

```
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: [Title]
Date: [Date] | Prepared for: [Audience] | Confidentiality: [Level]

RECOMMENDATION
[1-2 sentences: The single most important recommendation, stated with conviction]

CONTEXT
[Situation]: [2-3 sentences establishing context]
[Complication]: [2-3 sentences on why action is needed now]

KEY FINDINGS
1. [Finding 1 — stated as an insight, not a data point] (Supporting data)
2. [Finding 2] (Supporting data)
3. [Finding 3] (Supporting data)

FINANCIAL IMPACT
[Summary table: Revenue / Cost / ROI / Timeline]
| Metric         | Year 1    | Year 2    | Year 3    |
|----------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|
| Revenue impact | $[X]      | $[X]      | $[X]      |
| Cost impact    | $[X]      | $[X]      | $[X]      |
| Net impact     | $[X]      | $[X]      | $[X]      |
| ROI            | [X]%      | [X]%      | [X]%      |

RISKS
- [Risk 1]: [Mitigation]
- [Risk 2]: [Mitigation]
- [Risk 3]: [Mitigation]

NEXT STEPS
1. [Action 1] — [Owner] — [Date]
2. [Action 2] — [Owner] — [Date]
3. [Action 3] — [Owner] — [Date]

DECISION REQUESTED
[Explicit statement of what approval or decision is needed]
```

---

#### Template C: Board Memo (2-4 Pages)

```
BOARD MEMORANDUM

TO:      [Board of Directors / Committee]
FROM:    [Author, Title]
DATE:    [Date]
RE:      [Subject — make it specific]
ACTION:  [APPROVAL REQUESTED / FOR DISCUSSION / FOR INFORMATION]

─────────────────────────────────────────────

1. PURPOSE

This memo requests [approval of / input on / informs the board about]
[specific subject]. [One sentence on why this is being brought to the
board now.]

2. RECOMMENDATION

[State the recommendation clearly in 2-3 sentences. If multiple options
were considered, state which is recommended and why.]

Recommended: [Option X]
- [Key benefit 1]
- [Key benefit 2]
- [Key benefit 3]

3. BACKGROUND

[Situation — 1-2 paragraphs of relevant context]

[Complication — 1-2 paragraphs on what changed or what is at stake]

4. ANALYSIS

[Supporting argument 1 — with evidence]

[Supporting argument 2 — with evidence]

[Supporting argument 3 — with evidence]

[Financial summary table]
| Metric      | Conservative | Base Case | Optimistic |
|-------------|-------------|-----------|------------|
| [Metric 1]  | $[X]        | $[X]      | $[X]       |
| [Metric 2]  | $[X]        | $[X]      | $[X]       |

5. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

| Option | Description | Pros | Cons | Recommendation |
|--------|-------------|------|------|----------------|
| A      | [Desc]      | [+]  | [-]  | Recommended    |
| B      | [Desc]      | [+]  | [-]  | Not recommended|
| C      | [Desc]      | [+]  | [-]  | Not recommended|

6. RISKS AND MITIGATIONS

| Risk            | Probability | Impact | Mitigation              |
|-----------------|-------------|--------|-------------------------|
| [Risk 1]        | [H/M/L]    | [H/M/L]| [Specific mitigation]   |
| [Risk 2]        | [H/M/L]    | [H/M/L]| [Specific mitigation]   |

7. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

| Phase     | Timeline    | Key Milestones          | Owner   |
|-----------|-------------|-------------------------|---------|
| Phase 1   | [Dates]     | [Milestones]            | [Name]  |
| Phase 2   | [Dates]     | [Milestones]            | [Name]  |

8. RESOLUTION

RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors hereby [approves / authorizes]
[specific action], subject to [conditions if any].

APPENDICES
A. [Detailed financial model]
B. [Market analysis]
C. [Risk assessment]
```

### Step 6: Quality Gate — The 10-Minute Board Test

Before finalizing, apply this test:

| Test | Pass / Fail | Fix Required |
|---|---|---|
| **Can a board member read this in 10 minutes and make a decision?** | [P/F] | [What to cut/clarify] |
| **Is the recommendation stated in the first 30 seconds of reading?** | [P/F] | [Move recommendation up] |
| **Are there more than 5 key points?** If yes, consolidate. | [P/F] | [Group into themes] |
| **Does every page/section title state an insight?** (Not just a topic) | [P/F] | [Rewrite titles] |
| **Is the "so what" clear for every data point?** | [P/F] | [Add interpretation] |
| **Is the ask explicit?** (What decision, what approval, what resources) | [P/F] | [Add decision box] |
| **Are risks acknowledged without undermining the recommendation?** | [P/F] | [Reframe with mitigations] |
| **Is the financial impact quantified?** (Not just "significant") | [P/F] | [Add numbers] |
| **Could a smart person unfamiliar with the project follow the logic?** | [P/F] | [Add context] |
| **Is it free of jargon, acronyms, and insider language?** | [P/F] | [Simplify language] |

### Step 7: Polish and Finalize

**Language rules**:
- Active voice, not passive ("We recommend" not "It is recommended")
- Specific, not vague ("Revenue will grow 15%" not "Revenue will grow significantly")
- Confident, not hedging ("We recommend Option A" not "Option A might be worth considering")
- Short sentences (under 25 words average)
- No orphan data (every number has context and interpretation)

**Visual hierarchy rules**:
- Most important information in the top-left quadrant
- Key numbers in large font with context in smaller font
- Use bold for emphasis sparingly (if everything is bold, nothing is)
- White space is not waste — it aids readability
- Consistent formatting throughout (fonts, sizes, colors, alignment)

**Proof of recommendation**:
- At least one financial metric supporting the recommendation
- At least one comparison (vs. alternatives, vs. status quo, vs. benchmark)
- At least one risk acknowledged with mitigation
- At least one timeline commitment

---

## Output Template

### [Deliverable Title]

**Date**: [Date] | **Prepared for**: [Audience] | **Format**: [Deck/Memo/Summary]

#### Communication Design

| Element | Design Choice |
|---|---|
| Narrative structure | SCR: [Situation] → [Complication] → [Resolution] |
| Pyramid top | [Single most important message] |
| Supporting pillars | 1. [Argument 1] 2. [Argument 2] 3. [Argument 3] |
| Decision requested | [Explicit decision ask] |
| Time to consume | [X] minutes |

#### Deliverable Content

*(Insert the appropriate template from Step 5: Template A, B, or C, fully populated with the analysis content)*

#### Slide Titles / Section Headers (Story Test)

Read in sequence — do these tell the complete story?

1. [Title 1 — situational context]
2. [Title 2 — complication / challenge]
3. [Title 3 — recommendation]
4. [Title 4 — supporting argument 1]
5. [Title 5 — supporting argument 2]
6. [Title 6 — supporting argument 3]
7. [Title 7 — financial impact]
8. [Title 8 — risks addressed]
9. [Title 9 — implementation path]
10. [Title 10 — decision requested]

**Story coherence check**: [Does reading just the titles tell a complete, logical, compelling story? Yes/No — fix if No]

#### Quality Gate Results

*(Include all 10 tests from Step 6 with pass/fail and any corrections made)*

---

## Quality Checks

- [ ] Recommendation is stated within the first 30 seconds of reading (answer-first, per Pyramid Principle)
- [ ] SCR framework is applied: Situation sets context, Complication creates urgency, Resolution delivers the answer
- [ ] Every page/section title states an insight or assertion, not just a topic label
- [ ] Reading ONLY the titles in sequence tells the complete story (slide title test)
- [ ] No more than 5 key supporting arguments (grouped into themes if analysis has more)
- [ ] Every data point has a "so what" — no orphan numbers without interpretation
- [ ] Financial impact is quantified with specific dollar amounts or percentages
- [ ] At least 3 risks are acknowledged with specific mitigations (credibility test)
- [ ] Alternatives considered are presented fairly, with clear rationale for recommendation
- [ ] The explicit decision requested is stated — what exactly should the audience approve/decide
- [ ] A board member can read the full document in the stated time and make a decision (10-minute test)
- [ ] Language is active voice, specific (not vague), and confident (not hedging)
- [ ] No jargon or acronyms without definition; accessible to a smart generalist
- [ ] Visual hierarchy guides the eye: most important information is most prominent
- [ ] Appendices contain supporting detail; main body contains only decision-critical content