Consulting & AdvisoryFree
Consulting Storyline and Executive Summary
The pyramid gets the order right. This grades every step on the evidence beneath it and the objection that would take it down.
River writes the storyline as a numbered argument before anything gets designed. Each step arrives typed as a grouping or a deduction, carrying the evidence beneath it, the reference that evidence sits at, and the strongest objection anyone in the room will raise against it. The slide plan is then derived from the argument rather than the other way round, marking every slide whose analysis does not exist yet, so nobody builds forty pages around a step nothing supports.
Search this and page one is Minto. Situation, complication, question, answer. Lead with the governing thought, support it with three mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive arguments, put an action title on every slide. It is the right structure, it is sixty years old, and everybody in the room learned it too. What it tests is whether your categories overlap or leave a gap. What it never tests is whether a claim survives the one person who does not want it to.
Built for the consultant writing the readout, the partner reviewing it before it goes, and the fractional executive presenting to a board. It runs off the finding register and its criteria. Where a step turns on money, the figures come from a business case with its assumptions named or the operational diagnostic and its subtotals. Steps resting on what people said inherit their counts and their grain from the theme register, so a number in the summary matches the one in the appendix.
The rules for an argument that has to win
There is a published specification for a written argument that has to move a decision maker, and it is stricter than any deck template. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28 fixes both the order and the contents. The issues presented, then a statement of the case with references to the record, then a summary of the argument, then the argument itself, and last a short conclusion stating the precise relief sought. The precise relief sought. Not next steps, not a thank you slide.
Two clauses inside that rule are worth the whole thing. The summary of the argument has to be succinct, clear and accurate, and it must not merely repeat the argument headings, which is exactly what a bad executive summary does. And the argument itself must carry the contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the parts of the record relied on. Every contention, every citation. A claim with nothing under it does not get to be in the brief.
Whether a step is strong enough to argue from has a published test as well. Federal Rule of Evidence 702 admits an expert opinion on four conditions that all have to hold at once. It has to be more likely than not that the opinion helps decide the question. It has to rest on sufficient facts or data and be the product of reliable principles and methods. And those methods have to be reliably applied to the facts of this case. A step failing any one of the four is a hypothesis.
How it works
Send the findings
Every finding and its evidence, including the ones you already know will not make it.
Name the decision
What you want decided, by whom, and the date the room actually sits.
Read the storyline
The argument numbered, typed and graded, with the objection sitting under each step.
Build from the plan
One slide per step, in build order, with the missing analysis flagged first.
What you get
- Every step typed as a grouping or a deduction, because the two fail in different ways
- The strongest objection against each step, and whether the evidence already answers it
- A record reference under every claim, so a challenge gets a page number back
- The governing thought written as a decision request with a named person and a date
- A slide plan derived from the argument, marking the slides whose analysis does not exist
- The cut list, with the reason each finding is out and where it lives instead
Common questions
What does it need from me?
The findings with their evidence, including the ones you expect to cut. Then the decision you want, the person who makes it, and the date the room sits. Naming who will argue against it changes what gets tested, so say that too, even where the answer is nobody openly.
Is this just the Pyramid Principle again?
It uses the same shape and adds the test the pyramid never had. Mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive checks your categories for overlap and gaps. It says nothing about whether a claim survives contact with the person who does not want it to, which is what decides a board meeting.
Why type a step as a grouping or a deduction?
Because they break differently. A grouping loses a member and still stands: 23 loss making practices make the same point as 24. A deduction has no slack, since each link forces the next, so the whole argument above it dies with one false link. That tells you where to spend the last week.
What happens to a step whose evidence is thin?
It gets graded thin, keeps its place in the argument, and gains either a caveat in its own headline or a piece of work with a date. Where neither is possible before the meeting, the step leaves the argument and returns as a condition on the recommendation, which is a stronger position than an assertion.
Why write down what you cut?
Because somebody in the room watched the work happen and knows what is missing. A one sentence reason reads as command of the evidence; a pause reads as an oversight and moves the discussion onto your process. The reason also distinguishes a finding that is weak from one that belongs to a different decision.
What makes a usable governing thought?
A sentence somebody could refuse. It names the action, the scope and the date, and it is addressed to whoever can approve it. Options for out of hours cover is a topic. Consolidate into three hubs from April and close 28 rotas is a claim, and a room can say yes or no to it.
Where does this sit in the engagement?
After the findings exist and before a single slide is designed. It reads off the finding register with criteria and causes, and the sequencing it implies gets built out in a roadmap checked against real capacity. Everything on the deck then follows the argument, which is where the title stack picks it up.
Consulting Storyline and Executive Summary
Fill in the form and your workspace opens with the work already underway.