# Lifesight Cfo Translation

> Use when the user needs to translate marketing measurement into finance / P&L language, or defend marketing spend to finance — "what do I tell the CFO", "prove our ROI to finance", "is our spend defensible", "translate this into business terms", "build the finance case for the budget", "marketing's contribution to the P&L". Also the right spoke when the user IS the CFO / VP Finance asking whether marketing spend is working. Routed to from the `lifesight` router after the workspace is calibrated.

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

---


# 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

1. **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).
2. **Recompute in P&L terms.** Spend → incremental revenue → efficiency → the
   marginal economics of any proposed change. Lead with the business outcome.
3. **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:
1. **The bottom line** — incremental revenue and efficiency this period, in P&L terms.
2. **What it means for spend** — is current spend defensible? Where's waste? What's the ask?
3. **Why it's trustworthy** — causal basis + confidence + recency, in one tight para.
4. **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