sarbak Storyline Synthesis
Write a clean, McKinsey-style synthesis document from analysis work in the current project.
This process has 10 steps. Complete every step in order. Do not skip steps. When reporting progress, label each step as shown (e.g., "Step 3/10").
Step 1/10 -- Read all analysis documents
Read every document in the project's strategy/analysis subfolder. Identify:
- All findings with supporting data
- Any contradictions between documents
- Gaps where claims lack supporting evidence
Step 2/10 -- Identify the governing thought
Write one sentence that captures the core recommendation. This is the single most important sentence in the document. Everything else supports it.
Step 3/10 -- Plan the storyline structure
Outline BEFORE writing:
- Governing thought (from Step 2/10)
- 3-7 supporting arguments as action sentences (not topic labels)
- Verify the logical chain: each finding must lead to the next
Test: Read only the supporting argument headers in sequence. Do they tell the story by themselves?
Step 4/10 -- Check data backing
For every claim in the outline: does it have a number or source? If not, flag it. Do NOT write the synthesis with unsourced claims -- flag them for research first.
Step 5/10 -- Write the header
- Title
- Version number + date (e.g., "v3.0 -- March 20, 2026")
- Increment version on each meaningful update
Step 6/10 -- Write the storyline
- Section headers are action sentences, not topic labels. GOOD: "Mid-market SaaS companies are underserved by current vendors." BAD: "Market overview." GOOD: "Three distribution channels reach 80% of target buyers." BAD: "Go-to-market strategy."
- Consistent density across sections. No section should be 3x longer than another. If a section needs detail, move tables and lists to an appendix and reference it: "(See Appendix B for detail.)"
- Every claim needs a number or source. "The market is big" is not a finding. "$2.3B market, 15% CAGR (Gartner, 2025)" is.
- Each finding logically leads to the next. The reader should never ask "how did we get from A to C?"
- Never reference prior versions, research process, or what was assumed vs. found. Present validated findings as findings. The reader doesn't care about the research journey.
- Strip anything interesting but irrelevant. If it doesn't support the governing thought, cut it.
Step 7/10 -- Write the sequencing section
- Numbered action steps, time-bound
- Concrete, not aspirational
- Each step should have a clear owner or trigger
Step 8/10 -- Write appendices
- Appendix per topic (B, C, D...) for detailed tables referenced in the storyline
- Final appendix: Sourced data points -- every number cited in the document with:
- The specific claim
- Source URL or publication
- Date
- Caveats if any
Step 9/10 -- Run quality tests
Run ALL of these before publishing:
Step 9a/10 -- Pyramid test (down)
Does each header pose a question answered by its section content?
Step 9b/10 -- MECE test (across)
Are sections mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive? No overlaps, no gaps?
Step 9c/10 -- "So what?" test (up)
Does each section provide one "so what?" that builds the governing thought?
Step 9d/10 -- Density check
Is any section more than ~50% longer than the average? If so, trim and move detail to appendix.
Step 9e/10 -- Standalone test
Can someone who wasn't in the room read this and follow the logic without asking "but how do you know that?"
Step 9f/10 -- Action sentence test
Read only the headers in sequence. Do they tell the story by themselves?
Step 10/10 -- Output and share
Save the synthesis document. If the user has a sharing mechanism configured, share via link for easy review.
Anti-patterns
- Headers as topic labels ("Market sizing", "Competitive landscape") instead of action sentences
- Fat sections with 3 sub-sections and 5 tables in the main storyline
- Referencing prior versions ("we originally assumed X")
- Presenting analysis without a recommendation
- Missing appendix -- all detail in the body
- No version number or date
- Unsourced numbers