Same evidence, framed differently, produces different outcomes. Structure the case so the right people act on it.
When to Use
- User has a recommendation needing stakeholder presentation
- decision-synthesis output must become memo, deck, email, or conversation
- Justifying resource ask, scope change, or strategic pivot
- Someone needs convincing and framing is unclear
- execution-planning surfaces resource needs requiring buy-in (Contract C handoff)
Core Methodology
Step 1: Define the Audience
- Who: role, seniority, function
- What they care about: success metrics, priorities, constraints (CFO = ROI/risk; eng lead = tech debt/capacity)
- Prior belief: leaning toward, against, or no opinion — determines reinforce/convert/educate
- What changes their mind: data, authority, precedent, narrative, risk framing
- Identity stake: if recommendation implies they were wrong, expect resistance proportional to public commitment
When audience comes from stakeholder-power-mapping, use those motivations directly. From scenario-planning (Contract O), identify which stakeholders care about which scenarios.
Step 2: Formulate the Core Claim
One sentence. Must be:
- Specific: "Migrate to Kubernetes by Q3" not "modernize infrastructure"
- Actionable: names what to do, approve, or fund
- Falsifiable: someone could disagree — otherwise it's a platitude
From decision-synthesis (Contract A): recommended option + primary reason. From scenario-planning (Contract O): the robust strategy.
Step 3: Build the Argument Structure
Pyramid Principle (Minto): claim, then reasons, then evidence.
Core Claim
├── Reason 1 (strongest for this audience)
│ ├── Evidence A
│ └── Evidence B
├── Reason 2
│ ├── Evidence C
│ └── Evidence D
└── Reason 3 (addresses likely objection)
├── Evidence E
└── Evidence F
Rules:
- 2-4 reasons (fewer = unsupported; more = unfocused)
- Order by audience priority, not your logical sequence
- Each reason must independently support the claim — if removing one collapses it, that's a chain (fragile), not a pyramid
- Evidence types: data, precedent, authority, narrative, risk
From decision-synthesis scoring matrix: top criteria → reasons; scores → evidence.
Step 4: Map and Pre-empt Objections
Address counterarguments within the argument, not after.
For each objection:
- Steelman it — strawmen insult the audience
- Classify: factual (resolve with data), values (acknowledge trade-off), or fear (mitigate risk)
- Respond: concede + redirect. "Yes, upfront cost is higher — which is why the 18-month payback matters."
From decision-synthesis: main trade-off becomes primary objection. From scenario-planning (Contract O): weakest scenario becomes the objection.
Step 5: Select the Framing
| Frame | When to use | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Gain | Risk-tolerant, opportunity-seeking | "Unlocks $2M in new revenue" |
| Loss | Risk-averse, protective | "Without this, we lose $2M to competitors" |
| Narrative | Values stories over data | "When Company X faced this..." |
| Data-first | Analytical, skeptical of rhetoric | "Numbers show 3:1 return" |
| Vision | Strategic, long-horizon | "In three years, this positions us to..." |
| Problem-urgency | Doesn't yet agree there's a problem | "Every week we delay costs us..." |
When in doubt: problem-urgency (establish need) → gain (establish value).
Step 6: Adapt to the Medium
- Memo (1-2 pages): claim in first paragraph; reasons as headers; evidence as bullets; ask at end
- Presentation: one claim per slide; visuals not paragraphs; each slide answers "so what?"
- Email (3-5 paragraphs): subject = claim; opener = context + claim; middle = strongest reason + evidence; close = ask + deadline
- Conversation: context-set ("I want to discuss X because Y"), state claim, pause, adapt
- Slack (<200 words): bolded claim, 2-3 bullet reasons, one-line ask, link to memo
Step 7: Draft Opening and Close
Opening earns attention. Close drives action.
Openings:
- Context-claim: "We've been evaluating X. The recommendation is Y, because Z."
- Problem-solution: "We're facing [problem]. The path forward is [solution]."
- Shared goal: "We all want [goal]. Here's how to get there."
Closings:
- Specific ask: "I'm requesting approval for X by [date]."
- Decision frame: "The choice is between A and B. I recommend A."
- Next step: "If you agree, the next step is [action]."
Never close with a summary. Close with what you need them to do.
Step 8: Prepare the Handoff
Capture for execution-planning (Contract B):
- Committed decision: what was agreed, precisely
- Stakeholder alignment: who's on board, who has reservations, who wasn't there
- Constraints surfaced: new constraints from feedback (budget, timeline, scope)
If argument surfaces resource need: prepare Contract C handoff back to execution-planning — what's needed, why, what fails without it.
Output Format
🎯 Audience Profile
- Audience: [who — role and function]
- They care about: [priorities and metrics]
- Prior belief: [supportive / neutral / opposed / uninformed]
- Persuaded by: [data / narrative / authority / risk framing]
📋 Core Claim
[One sentence: specific, actionable, falsifiable]
⚖️ Argument Structure
| # | Reason | Evidence | Evidence type |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | [strongest reason for this audience] | [evidence] | [data / precedent / authority / narrative / risk] |
| 2 | [second reason] | [evidence] | [type] |
| 3 | [reason addressing likely objection] | [evidence] | [type] |
🛡️ Objection Map
| Objection | Type | Response |
|---|---|---|
| [steelmanned objection 1] | [factual / values / fear] | [concede + redirect] |
| [steelmanned objection 2] | [type] | [response] |
🧠 Framing & Medium
- Frame: [gain / loss / narrative / data-first / vision / problem-urgency]
- Medium: [memo / presentation / email / conversation / Slack]
- Rationale: [why this fits the audience]
🏆 Draft Opening
[2-3 sentence opening paragraph or slide structure]
📋✅ Downstream Handoff (Contract B)
- Committed decision: [what was decided]
- Stakeholder alignment: [who agreed, who has reservations]
- Constraints surfaced: [new constraints]
Thinking Triggers
- "If I had 30 seconds, what one sentence would I say?"
- "What's the strongest version of the argument against me?"
- "Am I leading with what matters to them, or to me?"
- "Does every reason independently support the claim?"
- "What does the audience stand to lose if they accept this?"
Common Traps
| Trap | What goes wrong |
|---|---|
| Leading with process | "We evaluated 5 options on 8 criteria..." — they want the answer, not the journey |
| Burying the claim | Building up instead of stating first. Executives stop reading. |
| Strawmanning objections | Weak counterarguments destroy credibility. Steelman the strongest. |
| One-size framing | Same frame for every audience wastes the strongest evidence. |
| Missing the ask | Analysis without request. Audience nods and moves on. Always close with what you need. |
| Chain arguments | Each point depends on the previous. Reject step 2, steps 3-5 collapse. Use a pyramid. |
| Advocacy without analysis | Structuring weak conclusions makes them harder to challenge — harmful. This skill structures communication of a sound conclusion; it does not validate it. |