lifesight Lifesight CFO Translation
Turn causal measurement into a finance-grade case. The numbers come from the model; your job is to make them defensible to a skeptical CFO — every marketing metric paired with its business meaning, conservative framing, no hype.
Prerequisites (router handles): workspace calibrated, profile loaded. Operate
under lifesight-core; present under lifesight-rendering (CFO persona framing).
Load both.
The core translation principle
A CFO does not buy "ROAS 2.2x". They buy "every $1 of incremental spend returns $2.20 in incremental revenue, verified causally — not platform-reported." Translate every metric into P&L terms, and always name the causal basis (it's the reason the number is trustworthy where platform numbers aren't).
| Marketing metric | Say it to finance as |
|---|---|
| iROAS 2.2x | $1 in → $2.20 incremental revenue (causal, not reported) |
| iRevenue $843K | Incremental revenue marketing caused this period |
| Efficiency +0.9 ROAS | Same outcome for less spend / more outcome per dollar |
| Saturation 86% | Diminishing returns — the last dollars here barely pay back |
| Marginal return 0.49x | Each extra $1 returns $0.49 — value-destroying spend to cut |
Flow
- Find the source. Often the analysis already exists in the conversation (an
optimization the growth team ran). Reuse it — don't re-run a heavy call. If
nothing exists, pull the minimum needed (current budget + the relevant outcome)
following
lifesight-core(one heavy call, walk gates). - Recompute in P&L terms. Spend → incremental revenue → efficiency → the marginal economics of any proposed change. Lead with the business outcome.
- Establish defensibility. State the causal basis (MMM + incrementality + calibrated attribution), the confidence/constraint range, and data recency. A CFO trusts a number that names its own uncertainty.
Judgment checks (mandatory)
- Conservative, not optimistic. If figures are uncertain or contradictory, give the defensible (lower) read and flag the range. Never hand finance a number you'd have to walk back.
- Incremental vs reported. Make the distinction explicit — it's the whole reason finance can trust this over platform dashboards (which over-credit ~20-50%).
- Marginal economics of any "increase". Extra spend must show its marginal return. "Spend more" only survives a CFO if the next dollar still pays back.
- Tie to the business goal. Revenue, profit, CAC, efficiency — connect to what the CFO is accountable for, not marketing vanity metrics.
Output shape
A finance memo, not a marketing report:
- The bottom line — incremental revenue and efficiency this period, in P&L terms.
- What it means for spend — is current spend defensible? Where's waste? What's the ask?
- Why it's trustworthy — causal basis + confidence + recency, in one tight para.
- The recommendation — defensible, conservative, with the marginal economics shown.
Keep it short and sober. Confident category-leader voice, but evidence-first — a CFO distrusts enthusiasm.
Next steps to offer
"Build the board version of this" (→ board-briefing) · "Model the P&L impact of the reallocation" · "Show the incrementality methodology" (→ measurement-coach) · "Export the finance summary".
Red flags — STOP
- Handing finance a marketing metric (ROAS/CTR) without its P&L translation
- Leading with the optimistic number when the data is uncertain → give the defensible read
- Claiming an "increase" is good without showing marginal return
- Presenting platform-reported figures as causal → name the difference