Exec Vs Working Deck Skill
The working deck — forty slides of exploration, methodology, and dead ends — is a diary of the analysis. Presenting it to executives narrates the journey chronologically, landing the answer at slide 34 of a meeting that ended attention-wise at slide 6. The exec cut inverts the geometry: the answer first (slide 2 at the latest), the three pieces of evidence that carry it, the risks and the ask — 6–10 slides — with the working deck demoted to appendix, where it does its real executive job: existing, as the visible proof of rigor behind every Q&A answer ("slide 24 has that cohort — here").
What This Skill Produces
- The exec cut — answer-first, 6–10 slides, built from the working deck's strongest material
- The compression map — every working-deck section: promoted / compressed to a line / appendixed / cut
- The appendix strategy — the Q&A-ordered depth, indexed so retrieval is instant in the room
- The two-deck discipline — when each artifact is used, so the working deck stops leaking into exec rooms
Required Inputs
Ask for these if not provided:
- The working deck (or analysis) — the source material; the cut is extraction, not new writing
- The answer, committed: the exec cut requires the author to have a conclusion — "here's what we found, you decide" working decks first need the conclusion conversation (executive-summary BLUF discipline; no cut can rescue an uncommitted analysis)
- The executives' currencies — what this audience weighs (growth? risk? cost?) — the three surviving evidence pieces are chosen in their currency
- The likely hard questions — each one gets its appendix slide, pre-ordered by likelihood
Framework: The Split Rules
- Answer at slide 2: slide 1 orients (the question we set out to answer), slide 2 answers it, unhedged — everything after is evidence, risk, and the ask. The chronological reveal ("first we looked at…") is the working deck's structure leaking; executives fund conclusions, not journeys.
- Three evidence pieces, chosen not accumulated: the working deck's twelve supporting analyses compress to the three that carry the most weight in the audience's currency — each as one deck-outline-first claim-slide. The other nine live in the appendix, alive and retrievable, not deleted (slide-density-rules redistribution, applied at deck scale).
- Methodology becomes one line plus a pointer: "12 cohorts, 18 months, methodology in appendix A" — rigor gets asserted and evidenced-on-demand, not walked through. The exception: when the method IS the controversy (a contested model), it earns one slide, framed as the credibility answer.
- Risks and the ask close, always: the exec cut ends with the risks conceded (proposal-skeleton objections logic) and the specific ask — decision, resource, date. Working decks trail off into "next steps"; exec cuts land on a decision point.
- The appendix is a product, not a dump: ordered by question-likelihood (the hard questions' slides first), each appendix slide self-sufficient and findable in seconds ("slide 24" said confidently is worth two slides of preemptive defense). The in-room move — answer briefly, offer the depth — makes the appendix's existence do the persuading.
Output Format
Exec Cut: [analysis] — [N] slides + appendix · audience currency: [their weights]
The Cut (slide order)
- The question · 2. The answer · 3–5. The three evidence claims · 6. Risks conceded · 7. The ask
[Each slide as its headline claim]
The Compression Map
| Working-deck section |
Fate |
Where |
| [Promoted / one-line / appendix-# / cut] |
|
|
The Appendix Plan
[Q&A-ordered: likely question → its slide · the index card for in-room retrieval]
Quality Checks
Anti-Patterns
1---2name: exec-vs-working-deck3description: Stop presenting the working deck to executives — the two-deck split (answer-first exec cut vs. exploration-rich working deck), the compression rules from 40 slides to 8, and the appendix strategy that keeps the depth one click away. Use when asked turn this analysis into an exec version, my leadership readout went badly, how do I compress 40 slides to 10 minutes, or what do execs actually want in a deck. Produces the exec cut with the answer-first order, the compression map (what survived, where the rest went), and the Q&A appendix plan.4---5
6# Exec Vs Working Deck Skill
7
8The working deck — forty slides of exploration, methodology, and dead ends — is a *diary of the analysis*. Presenting it to executives narrates the journey chronologically, landing the answer at slide 34 of a meeting that ended attention-wise at slide 6. The exec cut inverts the geometry: the answer first (slide 2 at the latest), the three pieces of evidence that carry it, the risks and the ask — 6–10 slides — with the working deck demoted to appendix, where it does its real executive job: *existing*, as the visible proof of rigor behind every Q&A answer ("slide 24 has that cohort — here").
9
10## What This Skill Produces
11
12- **The exec cut** — answer-first, 6–10 slides, built from the working deck's strongest material
13- **The compression map** — every working-deck section: promoted / compressed to a line / appendixed / cut
14- **The appendix strategy** — the Q&A-ordered depth, indexed so retrieval is instant in the room
15- **The two-deck discipline** — when each artifact is used, so the working deck stops leaking into exec rooms
16
17## Required Inputs
18
19Ask for these if not provided:
20- **The working deck (or analysis)** — the source material; the cut is extraction, not new writing
21- **The answer, committed:** the exec cut requires the author to *have* a conclusion — "here's what we found, you decide" working decks first need the conclusion conversation ([executive-summary](../executive-summary/SKILL.md) BLUF discipline; no cut can rescue an uncommitted analysis)
22- **The executives' currencies** — what this audience weighs (growth? risk? cost?) — the three surviving evidence pieces are chosen in their currency
23- **The likely hard questions** — each one gets its appendix slide, pre-ordered by likelihood
24
25## Framework: The Split Rules
26
271. **Answer at slide 2:** slide 1 orients (the question we set out to answer), slide 2 answers it, unhedged — everything after is evidence, risk, and the ask. The chronological reveal ("first we looked at…") is the working deck's structure leaking; executives fund conclusions, not journeys.
282. **Three evidence pieces, chosen not accumulated:** the working deck's twelve supporting analyses compress to the three that carry the most weight in the audience's currency — each as one [deck-outline-first](../deck-outline-first/SKILL.md) claim-slide. The other nine live in the appendix, alive and retrievable, not deleted ([slide-density-rules](../slide-density-rules/SKILL.md) redistribution, applied at deck scale).
293. **Methodology becomes one line plus a pointer:** "12 cohorts, 18 months, methodology in appendix A" — rigor gets *asserted and evidenced-on-demand*, not walked through. The exception: when the method IS the controversy (a contested model), it earns one slide, framed as the credibility answer.
304. **Risks and the ask close, always:** the exec cut ends with the risks conceded ([proposal-skeleton](../proposal-skeleton/SKILL.md) objections logic) and the specific ask — decision, resource, date. Working decks trail off into "next steps"; exec cuts land on a decision point.
315. **The appendix is a product, not a dump:** ordered by question-likelihood (the hard questions' slides first), each appendix slide self-sufficient and findable in seconds ("slide 24" said confidently is worth two slides of preemptive defense). The in-room move — answer briefly, offer the depth — makes the appendix's existence do the persuading.
32
33## Output Format
34
35# Exec Cut: [analysis] — [N] slides + appendix · audience currency: [their weights]
36
37## The Cut (slide order)
381. The question · 2. **The answer** · 3–5. The three evidence claims · 6. Risks conceded · 7. The ask
39[Each slide as its headline claim]
40
41## The Compression Map
42| Working-deck section | Fate | Where |
43|---|---|---|
44[Promoted / one-line / appendix-# / cut]
45
46## The Appendix Plan
47[Q&A-ordered: likely question → its slide · the index card for in-room retrieval]
48
49## Quality Checks
50
51- [ ] The answer lands by slide 2, unhedged
52- [ ] Exactly three evidence pieces survived, chosen in the audience's currency
53- [ ] Methodology compressed to assertion-plus-pointer (unless it's the controversy)
54- [ ] The cut ends in risks and a specific ask
55- [ ] The appendix is question-ordered and indexed for live retrieval
56
57## Anti-Patterns
58
59- [ ] Do not present the diary — the journey structure is for the team that took it
60- [ ] Do not hedge the answer to seem balanced — the risks slide is where balance lives; slide 2 is where the answer does
61- [ ] Do not delete the depth — appendixed rigor answers Q&A; deleted rigor becomes "we'll get back to you"
62- [ ] Do not walk through methodology uninvited — assert, evidence on demand
63- [ ] Do not build the exec cut before committing to the answer — compression can't rescue an analysis that won't conclude
Mohit Aggarwal