exec-vs-working-deck

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](../executive-summary/SKILL.md) 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

1. 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.
2. 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).
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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)

1. 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

• [ ] The answer lands by slide 2, unhedged
• [ ] Exactly three evidence pieces survived, chosen in the audience's currency
• [ ] Methodology compressed to assertion-plus-pointer (unless it's the controversy)
• [ ] The cut ends in risks and a specific ask
• [ ] The appendix is question-ordered and indexed for live retrieval

Anti-Patterns

• [ ] Do not present the diary — the journey structure is for the team that took it
• [ ] Do not hedge the answer to seem balanced — the risks slide is where balance lives; slide 2 is where the answer does
• [ ] Do not delete the depth — appendixed rigor answers Q&A; deleted rigor becomes "we'll get back to you"
• [ ] Do not walk through methodology uninvited — assert, evidence on demand
• [ ] Do not build the exec cut before committing to the answer — compression can't rescue an analysis that won't conclude