---
name: consulting
description: Strategic consulting reports — Go/No-Go decisions, Strategy Design, Belief Change
author: revela
version: 1.0.0
---

# Strategic Consulting Reports — Domain Knowledge

## 1. Core Definition

This domain covers three canonical consulting report types. The reasoning core is:
**Claim → Evidence → Synthesis**, executed under imperfect information.
Every conclusion must be earned through evidence, never asserted by adjective.

### Report Type Auto-Detection

| Signal in User Request | Report Type |
|------------------------|-------------|
| "Should we enter / invest / do X?" / "Is X worth doing?" | **Type I: Go/No-Go** |
| "How should we do X?" / "Which path?" / "What strategy?" | **Type II: Strategy Design** |
| "We believe X, is that right?" / "Help us rethink X" | **Type III: Belief Change** |
| Unclear | Ask the user before starting |

---

## 2. Unified Argumentation Protocol

Execute these four steps internally before writing any slide content.

### Step 1: Claims

Convert every question into a declarative judgment: not "Is the market growing?" but
"The market is in sustained growth phase." Every slide title follows the same rule.

### Step 2: Evidence Plan

For each claim, identify required evidence types before collecting:
TAM / CAGR / demand drivers / capital flow / policy / company financials / case studies.

### Step 3: Evidence Collection — Priority Ladder

| Level | Type | Use when |
|-------|------|----------|
| L1 | Direct data (financials, market studies) | Always preferred |
| L2 | Indirect indicators (capex, volumes, hiring) | L1 unavailable |
| L3 | Named case studies (company + outcome) | Corroborate or illustrate |
| L4 | Logical inference / first principles | Last resort only |

Auto-downgrade when higher levels are unavailable. **Never interrupt reasoning.**

### Step 4: Synthesis

```
Claim → Evidence (≥2 types) → Logic (causal link) → Conclusion
```

Every claim needs ≥2 different evidence types. Every slide: 1 core insight + 3–5 supporting points + ≥1 evidence.

---

## 3. Report Type I: Go / No-Go

**Goal:** Clear Yes / No / Conditional verdict on whether a strategic action is worth taking.

### Slide Structure (20–30 pages)

| Slide | Title | Content |
|-------|-------|---------|
| P1 | Executive Answer | Verdict + 3 core reasons (≤2 sentences each) |
| P2 | Key Risks Up Front | Top 3 risks (surfaces credibility early) |
| P3 | Scope & Framing | What is being evaluated; key constraints and assumptions |
| P4–P6 | Opportunity: Market Size | TAM/SAM/SOM; growth rate; addressable segment |
| P7–P9 | Opportunity: Demand Drivers | 2–3 structural drivers with evidence; timeline |
| P10–P12 | Economics: Revenue Model | Revenue structure; benchmark margins; how money is made |
| P13–P15 | Economics: Cost Structure | Key cost drivers; unit economics; comparable cases |
| P16–P17 | Entry Requirements: Capabilities | Capability threshold; current gap assessment |
| P18–P19 | Entry Requirements: Resources | Capital, time, partnerships required |
| P20–P22 | Risk Deep Dive | Market / Competitive / Execution / External risk |
| P23–P24 | Scenarios | Best / Base / Worst with quantified outcomes and triggers |
| P25–P27 | Competitive Landscape | Who is here; their advantages; whitespace |
| P28 | Opportunity Cost | What is forgone either way |
| P29 | Conditions for Yes | 3–5 conditions that must hold for success |
| P30 | Final Recommendation | Decision + rationale + next action |

### Page Allocation

| Requested | Strategy |
|-----------|----------|
| ≤10 | Verdict (P1) + Opportunity condensed (1) + Economics (1) + Risks (1) + Recommendation (P30) |
| 10–20 | All 7 sections; 1–2 slides each; skip scenario detail |
| 20–30 | Full structure above |
| >30 | Expand evidence slides; add data appendix |

---

## 4. Report Type II: Strategy Design

**Goal:** Identify the best strategic path among alternatives. Delivers a recommended option with execution plan.

### Slide Structure (20–30 pages)

| Slide | Title | Content |
|-------|-------|---------|
| P1 | Recommended Path | Answer upfront: which option + why (2 sentences) |
| P2 | Objective & Constraints | Strategic goal + non-negotiable constraints + success metrics |
| P3 | Framing the Choice | Options available; how analysis is structured |
| P4–P6 | Value Pool Analysis | Where profit concentrates in the value chain; distribution evidence |
| P7–P9 | Competitive Landscape | Market structure; competitive dynamics; moats |
| P10–P11 | Capability Fit | Current capabilities vs. path requirements; gap map |
| P12–P14 | Option A | What it is + how it works + evidence it can succeed |
| P15–P17 | Option B | Same structure |
| P18 | Option C (if applicable) | Same structure, condensed |
| P19–P21 | Option Comparison Matrix | Return / difficulty / risk / capability fit / timeline |
| P22–P23 | Risks of Recommended Path | Top 3 risks + mitigation |
| P24 | Build / Partner / Acquire | How to close capability gaps |
| P25–P27 | Execution Plan | Phase 1/2/3 milestones; resources; decision gates |
| P28 | Success Metrics | 3–5 KPIs with targets and cadence |
| P29 | Downside Scenario | If recommended path fails; fallback |
| P30 | Decision & Next Steps | Confirm recommendation + immediate actions (owner + timeline) |

### Page Allocation

| Requested | Strategy |
|-----------|----------|
| ≤10 | Recommendation (P1) + Value Pool (1) + Options A/B comparison (2) + Execution (1) + Decision (1) |
| 10–20 | All sections; 1 slide per option; 1-slide execution summary |
| 20–30 | Full structure above |
| >30 | Expand each option; add financial modeling appendix |

---

## 5. Report Type III: Belief Change

**Goal:** Shift a decision-maker's mental model. Persuasion through evidence and reframing, not assertion.

### Slide Structure (20–30 pages)

| Slide | Title | Content |
|-------|-------|---------|
| P1 | The New Frame | One sentence: the new belief. The whole deck proves this. |
| P2 | What We Used to Believe | Articulate the current belief honestly — earn trust before challenging |
| P3 | Why That Belief Made Sense | Validate the old model; show when it was correct |
| P4–P6 | The Gap / Tension | Evidence the old belief can no longer explain current observations |
| P7–P9 | Breaking the Old Frame | 3 specific pieces of evidence directly contradicting the old belief |
| P10–P12 | The New Frame Explained | What the new model is; how it explains the gaps |
| P13–P15 | Proof: Benchmark Companies | 2–3 named companies operating under the new frame — with outcomes |
| P16–P17 | Proof: Edge Cases | Cases where the old belief led to demonstrably wrong decisions |
| P18–P19 | Proof: Quantitative Evidence | Market data or research validating the new frame |
| P20–P21 | Implication: Opportunity | What becomes possible under the new frame |
| P22–P23 | Implication: Risk of Not Changing | What is at stake if the old belief persists |
| P24–P25 | The Stakes | Quantify: acting on old frame vs. new frame |
| P26–P27 | Objection Handling | Top 3 objections + direct rebuttals with evidence |
| P28 | What This Means for Us | Specific implications for the audience's context |
| P29 | Action Direction | 2–3 strategic directions enabled by the new frame |
| P30 | The Ask | What you want the audience to believe / decide / do next |

### Page Allocation

| Requested | Strategy |
|-----------|----------|
| ≤10 | Old belief (P2) + Gap (P4) + Break (P7) + New Frame (P10) + Proof (P13) + Implication (P20) + Ask (P30) |
| 10–20 | All 8 sections; compress proof to 2 slides; merge or skip objection handling |
| 20–30 | Full structure above |
| >30 | Expand proof with additional cases; add data appendix |

---

## 6. Research Guidance

### Information Mapping

| Document Type | Map to Report Section |
|---------------|-----------------------|
| Market research reports | Opportunity (Type I P4–P9), Value Pool (Type II P4–P6) |
| Company financials / P&L | Economics (Type I P10–P15), Option analysis (Type II) |
| Competitor analysis | Competitive Landscape, Option comparison |
| Internal strategy docs | Constraints, Capability fit, Objectives |
| Case study materials | Proof slides (Type III), Case evidence (all types) |
| Interview / meeting notes | Risk identification, Constraints, Belief mapping (Type III) |
| Industry news / press | Demand drivers, Policy signals, Competitive dynamics |

### Cross-Source Conflict Handling

- **User document vs. AI knowledge:** User document takes precedence
- **Two user documents conflict:** Flag in the relevant risk slide:
  `[Data Conflict: Source A shows X; Source B shows Y — reconciliation needed]`
- **Missing data:** Auto-downgrade to L3/L4 evidence. Never halt.

---

## 7. AI Logic Engine Directives

### Conclusive Title Rule

Every slide title is the insight — a conclusion, not a label:

| Correct | Wrong |
|---------|-------|
| "Market growing at 18% CAGR — entry window is open" | "Market Overview" |
| "Path B requires capabilities we do not currently have" | "Option Comparison" |
| "All three benchmark leaders chose vertical integration" | "Competitive Landscape" |

### Evidence Attribution

Cite source inline for all critical data: `[Source: McKinsey, 2023]`, `[Source: Company 10-K FY2023 p.47]`,
`[Source: analytical inference — verify]`. No unsourced assertions on key claims.

### Signal-to-Noise Rule

Never use without quantitative backing: "leading", "dominant", "significant", "transformative",
"clearly", "obviously". Replace with specifics: not "significant opportunity" but
"$4.2B market growing at 18% CAGR (2023–2028)".

### Structural Defaults

- **2×2 matrices** for positioning comparisons (risk vs. return, capability vs. attractiveness)
- **Comparison tables** mandatory in Type II; ≥3 evaluation dimensions
- **Before/After frames** mandatory in Type III for old vs. new belief visualization
- **If request spans Type I + II:** complete Type I verdict first; proceed to Type II only if verdict is Go or Conditional

---

## 8. Visual Preferences (Advisory — Design Layer Takes Priority)

- **Tone:** Clean, high-contrast, professional. Dark text on light background.
- **Layout:** Prioritize matrices, comparison tables, and side-by-side layouts over bullet lists
- **Color:** Neutral (gray/blue) for facts; amber for opportunity; red for risk. One accent per slide.
- **Density:** Medium-high — consulting slides carry more data than pitch decks
- **Annotation:** Call out key figures with stat-card or pull-quote; do not bury in table cells