BW-301c · Module 1

Structure Patterns

5 min read

Two structural patterns dominate well-written executive summaries. They are not interchangeable — each is optimized for a different document type and a different reader situation. Using the wrong pattern for your document is not a catastrophic error, but it is unnecessary friction in a section where friction is especially costly.

  1. Pattern A: Problem / Solution / Proof / Ask Opens by establishing the problem, proposes the solution, provides the primary evidence that the solution works, and closes with the decision request. This pattern is optimized for: proposals (where the reader is evaluating whether to hire you), business cases (where the reader is evaluating whether to approve budget), and recommendation reports (where the reader is evaluating whether to act). The pattern works because it mirrors the reader's natural decision sequence — they will not consider the solution until they agree on the problem, and they will not commit until they see the evidence.
  2. Pattern B: Context / Recommendation / Impact / Next Step Opens with minimal context (what prompted this document), states the recommendation immediately, explains the expected impact of following the recommendation, and closes with the next step. This pattern is optimized for: internal memos and briefings (where the reader has context), reports where the reader has already agreed something needs to be done (they are deciding what, not whether), and any situation where leading with the problem would be redundant because the reader already knows it. Pattern B gets to the point faster — which is its advantage when the reader is already informed and impatient.
  3. Choosing Between Them The choosing criterion is simple: does the reader already agree that there is a problem? If yes, use Pattern B — they want to know what to do, not be reminded of what they already know. If there is any uncertainty about whether the reader accepts the problem framing, use Pattern A — establish the problem before the solution. When in doubt, use Pattern A: it is more persuasive for a skeptical reader and merely slightly slower for an informed one.

Do This

  • Pattern A for proposals, business cases, and any document where the reader may not yet accept your problem framing
  • Pattern B for internal reports to informed readers who want the recommendation, not the diagnosis
  • Open with the problem or context — never with your company's history or the document's table of contents
  • Close with the specific ask or next step — never with "thank you for your consideration"

Avoid This

  • Use Pattern A when the reader already lives with the problem daily and wants you to get to the recommendation
  • Use Pattern B for an external audience that has not yet agreed the problem exists
  • "This report was commissioned to explore..." — this is throat-clearing, not a summary opening
  • "We appreciate the opportunity to present..." — this belongs in a cover letter, not an executive summary
## Pattern A: Problem / Solution / Proof / Ask (Proposal Context)

Ryan Consulting's analysis of [Client]'s sales pipeline reveals a 34%
data integrity rate in the CRM — the root cause of the forecast variance
your leadership team identified in Q4. Inaccurate data is producing
unreliable forecasts, which is producing reactive resource allocation,
which is costing an estimated $1.2M annually in misallocated sales effort.

We propose a 90-day data integrity engagement that eliminates the three
entry-point failures driving the problem, establishes automated validation
protocols, and trains the affected team on the updated process. The outcome:
CRM integrity above 90%, forecast variance below 8%, within the engagement period.

We resolved this exact configuration for [comparable client] in Q3, achieving
94% integrity within 60 days. The approach is documented and repeatable.

We are asking you to authorize this engagement at the investment level
on page 8. Project start is available the week of [date].

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

## Pattern B: Context / Recommendation / Impact / Next Step (Internal Report)

Following Q4's forecast variance review, this report presents the findings
from CIPHER's CRM data audit and our recommended remediation path.

Recommendation: Implement the three-stage data validation protocol described
in Section 2, beginning with the inbound lead entry process (highest error rate,
lowest remediation cost).

Expected impact: CRM integrity reaches 90%+ within 60 days; forecast variance
drops below 8% by Q2. No additional headcount required.

Next step: IT lead approves the validation protocol by [date] to begin
the Week 1 configuration window.