Consulting Frameworks

Consulting Frameworks

Select the reference file matching your task. Each contains procedural guidance, application steps, quality checks, and examples.

Framework Selection Guide

Cross-Framework Patterns

Most consulting deliverables combine multiple frameworks:

• Market sizing = TAM/SAM/SOM (strategy) + MECE segmentation (structuring) + Pyramid Principle (communication)
• Due diligence = Porter's Five Forces (strategy) + Issue Tree (structuring) + NPV/IRR (financial)
• Business case = Build/Buy/Partner (financial) + RACI (operational) + SCR (communication)
• Transformation roadmap = Operating Model (operational) + 3 Horizons (strategy) + Hypothesis-Driven (structuring)

Read the primary reference file for your task, then pull from adjacent files as needed.

Communication Frameworks

Pyramid Principle (Barbara Minto)

What It Is

A communication structure where the answer comes first, supported by grouped arguments, each backed by evidence. The audience gets the conclusion immediately, then the supporting logic.

Structure

Governing Thought (the answer)
├── Pillar 1 (supporting argument)
│   ├── Evidence 1a
│   └── Evidence 1b
├── Pillar 2 (supporting argument)
│   ├── Evidence 2a
│   └── Evidence 2b
└── Pillar 3 (supporting argument)
    ├── Evidence 3a
    └── Evidence 3b

How to Apply

1. Start with the governing thought: One sentence that answers the question the audience has. Must be assertive — not a topic, not a question, not a hedge

• Good: "We recommend acquiring Target X at up to €200M, generating 18% IRR with payback in Year 3"
• Bad: "We have completed our analysis of Target X" (says nothing)

2. Build 3-4 supporting pillars: Each pillar is MECE with the others, each strong enough to stand independently 3. Sequence pillars persuasively: Options include:

• Situation → Analysis → Recommendation (when audience needs context)
• Strongest argument first (when audience is skeptical)
• Logical flow: market → competitive → financial (when building a case)

4. Back each pillar with evidence: Data points, analyses, examples — each mapped to exactly one pillar

Ordering Logic Within Groups

• Deductive: Major premise → minor premise → conclusion ("All markets above 5% CAGR are attractive → This market is 6.2% CAGR → This market is attractive")
• Inductive: Similar ideas grouped to reveal a pattern ("Revenue up, margins up, cash flow up → Financial performance is strengthening across all metrics")
• Chronological: When sequence matters ("Phase 1 → Phase 2 → Phase 3")
• Structural: When completeness matters ("Commercial → Financial → Operational" for DD)

Quality Check

• Governing thought is a single assertive sentence
• Reading only the governing thought + pillar headings tells the full story
• Each pillar is MECE with siblings
• No pillar requires another pillar's evidence to make sense
• Evidence under each pillar actually supports that pillar (not a different one)

---

SCR (Situation-Complication-Resolution)

What It Is

A three-part narrative structure for executive communication. Establishes context, creates tension, then resolves it with a recommendation.

Structure

• Situation: The current state — facts the audience already knows or accepts. This anchors shared understanding
• Complication: What changed, what's at stake, what tension exists. This is why we're talking
• Resolution: The recommended action. This is the answer

How to Apply

1. Situation (1-3 sentences): State only facts the audience agrees with. No new information, no controversy

• "Client X has grown 15% annually for 5 years through organic expansion in Western Europe"

2. Complication (1-3 sentences): Introduce the challenge, change, or threat. Create the "why now" urgency

• "Growth is decelerating as core markets mature, and two well-funded competitors are entering the mid-market segment"

3. Resolution (1-2 sentences): State the recommendation directly. This becomes the governing thought

• "We recommend Client X acquire a mid-market player to defend share and access the Eastern European growth corridor before competitors establish positions"

SCR Variants

• SQR (Situation-Question-Resolution): When the audience has a question rather than a problem. Replace Complication with the question being asked
• SCQA (Situation-Complication-Question-Answer): Extended version that explicitly states the question before answering. Useful for complex topics where the right question isn't obvious

When to Use

• Executive summaries (the standard format)
• Opening slide of any presentation
• Email recommendations to senior stakeholders
• Any communication where the audience's time is limited

Quality Check

• Situation contains only agreed-upon facts
• Complication creates genuine tension or urgency
• Resolution directly addresses the complication
• The whole SCR fits in 5-7 sentences maximum

---

Action Titles

What It Is

Slide titles written as complete, assertive sentences that convey the insight — not topic labels. If someone reads only the slide titles in sequence, they should understand the full argument.

How to Write Them

1. Write the insight first, then design the slide to support it 2. Use a complete sentence with a subject and verb 3. Include the "so what" — the implication, not just the fact 4. Quantify when possible — numbers make titles concrete and credible

Examples

Common Failures

• Describes the slide: "This slide shows market growth" → Should state what the growth means
• Asks a question: "Is the market attractive?" → Should answer it
• Hedges: "The market may be growing" → Take a position
• Too long: >2 lines means the thinking isn't sharp enough
• Disconnected from visual: Title says one thing, chart shows another

Quality Check

• Read titles in sequence — does the story flow?
• Does each title state an insight, not a topic?
• Could the title stand without the slide body and still be meaningful?
• Does the visual on the slide directly support the title's claim?

Financial Frameworks

NPV/IRR

What It Is

Investment decision criteria for evaluating whether a project or acquisition creates value.

Definitions

• NPV (Net Present Value): Sum of all future cash flows discounted to today. NPV > 0 means the project creates value above the cost of capital
• IRR (Internal Rate of Return): The discount rate at which NPV = 0. Compare to hurdle rate (typically 10-20% for strategic investments)
• Payback Period: When cumulative cash flows turn positive. Simple but ignores time value of money

How to Build

1. Project cash flows: Revenue - Costs - Capex - Tax, by year 2. Choose discount rate: WACC for corporate projects, target return for PE/VC 3. Calculate NPV: NPV = Σ [CFt / (1 + r)^t] for each year t 4. Calculate IRR: The rate r where NPV = 0 (use solver or iteration) 5. Run sensitivity: Vary discount rate ±2pp, vary cash flows ±15%, find break-even points

Decision Rules

• NPV > 0: Project creates value → proceed (subject to other considerations)
• IRR > hurdle rate: Project exceeds minimum return threshold → proceed
• When NPV and IRR conflict: Prefer NPV for mutually exclusive projects (IRR can mislead with non-standard cash flow patterns)

Common Pitfalls

• Using nominal cash flows with a real discount rate (or vice versa) — be consistent
• Ignoring terminal value (often 50-70% of total NPV for growth businesses)
• False precision: Projecting to the dollar when assumptions have ±20% uncertainty
• Forgetting to include integration costs, restructuring charges, or working capital changes in acquisition models

Quality Check

• Cash flows and discount rate use consistent inflation treatment
• Terminal value approach is stated and justified (perpetuity growth vs. exit multiple)
• Sensitivity analysis covers the 2-3 most uncertain assumptions
• Break-even values identified for the key decision variables

---

Build/Buy/Partner

What It Is

A framework for evaluating how to acquire a capability, enter a market, or grow — by building internally, acquiring, or partnering.

Evaluation Criteria

How to Apply

1. Define the capability or market access needed 2. Score each option (Build/Buy/Partner) against the criteria above 3. Add deal-specific factors: Is there a suitable acquisition target? Does the client have partnership track record? Does internal talent exist to build? 4. Assess time sensitivity: If the market window is closing, "build" may not be viable regardless of other merits 5. Model the economics of each option (NPV comparison)

When Each Wins

• Build: When the capability is core to competitive advantage and speed isn't critical
• Buy: When speed matters, a suitable target exists, and the client has integration capability
• Partner: When risk sharing is important, capabilities are complementary, or regulatory/political factors favor collaboration

Quality Check

• All three options genuinely evaluated (not just validating a pre-determined answer)
• Economics modeled for each option, not just qualitative pros/cons
• Integration risk explicitly assessed for "Buy" option
• Time-to-value compared across options

---

Zero-Based Budgeting (ZBB)

What It Is

A cost optimization approach where every expense must be justified from zero each period, rather than adjusting the prior year's budget incrementally.

How to Apply

1. Categorize costs: Group all costs into decision packages — discrete activities or functions that can be independently evaluated 2. For each package, answer:

• What does this cost exist to achieve?
• What would happen if we stopped it entirely?
• What is the minimum cost to achieve the objective?
• Are there alternative ways to achieve the same objective at lower cost?

3. Rank packages by return on investment or strategic importance 4. Fund from zero: Allocate budget starting with highest-priority packages until the budget constraint is reached. Everything below the line gets cut or redesigned 5. Implement: Build execution plan with timelines, owners, and tracking metrics

ZBB Cost Categories

• Non-negotiable: Regulatory requirements, safety, contractual obligations. Fund at required levels
• Strategic: Directly supports competitive advantage. Fund at competitive parity or above
• Enabling: Supports operations but doesn't differentiate. Fund at efficient levels — benchmark against best-in-class
• Discretionary: Nice to have. Fund last, cut first

Quality Check

• Every cost category has been challenged, not just low-hanging fruit
• Savings estimates are realistic (achievable within timeframe, with implementation costs included)
• Risks of cuts are identified (e.g., cutting customer service capacity may increase churn)
• Quick wins (<90 days) distinguished from structural changes (6-18 months)

---

Should-Cost Modeling

What It Is

A procurement and pricing framework that estimates what a product or service should cost based on its components, rather than accepting the supplier's price.

How to Build

1. Decompose the product/service into constituent components (materials, labor, overhead, margin) 2. Price each component independently:

• Raw materials: commodity prices, market benchmarks
• Labor: hours × wage rates (benchmarked by region/skill)
• Overhead: industry standard as % of direct cost (typically 15-30%)
• Margin: reasonable supplier margin (benchmark against industry, typically 5-15%)

3. Sum components to derive the "should-cost" 4. Compare to actual price: The gap between actual and should-cost is the negotiation opportunity

When to Use

• Procurement negotiations (justify price reduction demands)
• Make-or-buy decisions (compare internal cost to supplier quotes)
• Pricing strategy (ensure product pricing covers true costs plus target margin)
• Due diligence (validate target company's cost structure)

Quality Check

• All components identified and independently priced
• Benchmark data is recent and relevant (same geography, same scale)
• Overhead and margin assumptions are reasonable (not artificially low to manufacture a gap)
• Analysis accounts for supplier switching costs and relationship value

Operational Frameworks

RACI Matrix

What It Is

An accountability framework that clarifies who does what on every key activity. Prevents the two most common organizational failures: nobody owns it, or everybody owns it.

Roles

• R (Responsible): Does the work. Can be multiple people, but keep it tight
• A (Accountable): Makes the final decision and owns the outcome. Exactly one per activity — no exceptions
• C (Consulted): Provides input before the decision. Two-way communication
• I (Informed): Notified after the decision. One-way communication

How to Build

1. List activities/decisions in rows (be specific — "approve budget" not "finance stuff") 2. List roles/people in columns 3. Assign exactly one A per row 4. Assign R to those who do the work (minimum viable set) 5. C and I as needed — err on fewer (too many C's slows everything down)

Common Patterns to Catch

• No A assigned: Nobody owns the outcome. Fix immediately
• Multiple A's: Shared accountability = no accountability. Pick one
• Too many C's: Everyone has a veto. Limit to those whose input genuinely changes the decision
• A without R: The accountable person has no one to delegate to — they're implicitly R as well
• R without A: Work being done with nobody empowered to make decisions about it

Quality Check

• Every row has exactly one A
• Activities are specific enough to be actionable
• People assigned R actually have capacity and capability
• The matrix has been validated with the people named in it

---

Operating Model Canvas

What It Is

A framework for designing how an organization delivers value — the bridge between strategy ("what we want to achieve") and execution ("how we work day-to-day").

Components

1. Value Proposition: What the organization delivers to customers (from strategy) 2. Value Chain: The key activities that deliver the proposition (primary and support) 3. Organization: How people are grouped — by function, business unit, geography, process 4. Governance: How decisions are made — decision rights, escalation paths, committees 5. Information: What data flows where — systems, reports, KPIs 6. Suppliers & Partners: External relationships that enable the value chain 7. Location: Where work happens — centralized, distributed, nearshore/offshore

How to Apply

1. Start with value proposition (this constrains everything downstream) 2. Map the current operating model across all 7 components 3. Identify misalignments: strategy says "customer intimacy" but organization is structured by product, not customer segment 4. Design the target operating model by adjusting components to align with strategy 5. Gap analysis: current vs. target for each component 6. Sequence the transformation: which changes enable others?

Quality Check

• All 7 components addressed (common gap: governance and information are often skipped)
• Clear link from strategy to operating model choices
• Target model is feasible (not an idealized future with no constraints)
• Transition plan exists (you can't redesign everything at once)

---

Spans & Layers

What It Is

An organizational design framework focused on management structure — how many layers exist between the CEO and the front line (layers), and how many direct reports each manager has (span of control).

Benchmarks

• Span of control: 6-10 for operational managers, 5-8 for senior leaders, 3-5 for highly specialized roles
• Layers: Most organizations function well with 5-7 layers. More than 8 layers typically signals over-management
• Manager-to-individual-contributor ratio: 1:6 to 1:10 is healthy. Below 1:4 suggests excess management overhead

Diagnostic Questions

1. How many layers from CEO to front line? (Count by following any reporting chain) 2. What is the average span at each layer? (Sum of direct reports ÷ number of managers) 3. Where are spans abnormally narrow (<4)? These indicate potential redundant layers 4. Where are spans abnormally wide (>12)? These indicate potential management gaps 5. How many "pass-through" managers exist? (Managers with only 1-2 direct reports who primarily relay information)

How to Optimize

1. Map current spans and layers across the entire organization 2. Identify compression opportunities: layers where spans are <4 can often be collapsed 3. Model the target structure: wider spans, fewer layers, empowered front-line teams 4. Estimate savings: each removed management layer typically reduces headcount costs by 10-15% in that layer 5. Assess risks: faster decision-making vs. reduced oversight, potential loss of mentorship capacity

Quality Check

• Analysis is based on actual reporting data, not org charts (which are often outdated)
• Recommendations account for variation by function (sales can support wider spans than R&D)
• Transition plan addresses redeployment of affected managers
• Impact on decision speed, not just cost, is evaluated

---

Lean / Six Sigma

What It Is

Complementary process optimization methodologies. Lean eliminates waste (anything that doesn't add customer value). Six Sigma reduces variation (defects, errors, inconsistency).

Lean — The 8 Wastes (DOWNTIME)

• Defects: Rework, corrections, errors
• Overproduction: Making more than demanded
• Waiting: Idle time between process steps
• Non-utilized talent: Underusing people's skills
• Transportation: Unnecessary movement of materials
• Inventory: Excess stock or work-in-progress
• Motion: Unnecessary movement of people
• Extra processing: Work beyond what the customer values

Six Sigma — DMAIC

1. Define: What is the problem? What is the defect? What does the customer expect? 2. Measure: What is current performance? Baseline the defect rate 3. Analyze: What causes the defects? Root cause analysis (5 Whys, fishbone diagram) 4. Improve: What changes eliminate the root causes? Test solutions 5. Control: How do we sustain the improvement? Monitoring, standard work, control charts

When to Use Each

• Lean: When the problem is speed, cost, or throughput — too slow, too expensive, too much waste
• Six Sigma: When the problem is quality or consistency — too many errors, too much variation, unreliable output
• Both together: Most operational transformations benefit from both — eliminate waste (Lean) then reduce variation in what remains (Six Sigma)

Quality Check

• Problem definition is specific and measurable (not "improve operations")
• Current-state process is mapped before redesigning
• Root causes identified (not just symptoms)
• Improvements are sustained through control mechanisms, not just initial effort

Strategy Frameworks

Porter's Five Forces

What It Is

An industry attractiveness framework analyzing five competitive pressures that determine profitability potential.

The Five Forces

1. Threat of New Entrants: How easy is it for new players to enter?

• Barriers: capital requirements, economies of scale, regulatory licenses, brand loyalty, switching costs, distribution access
• High barriers = attractive for incumbents

2. Bargaining Power of Suppliers: Can suppliers dictate terms?

• Few suppliers, differentiated inputs, high switching costs = strong supplier power
• Many commoditized suppliers = weak supplier power

3. Bargaining Power of Buyers: Can customers dictate terms?

• Few large buyers, low switching costs, commoditized product = strong buyer power
• Fragmented buyers, differentiated product = weak buyer power

4. Threat of Substitutes: Can the need be met differently?

• Not just direct competitors — different solutions to the same problem
• Example: Video calls substitute for business flights (different product, same job-to-be-done)

5. Competitive Rivalry: How intense is existing competition?

• Many equal-sized competitors, slow growth, high fixed costs, low differentiation = intense rivalry

How to Apply

1. Assess each force as Low / Medium / High with specific evidence 2. Identify which 1-2 forces most constrain industry profitability 3. State the implication: "Industry attractiveness is [high/moderate/low] because [dominant force]" 4. Connect to the client's position: How do they fare relative to these forces?

Quality Check

• Every force rating has supporting evidence, not just a label
• Substitutes include non-obvious alternatives (not just direct competitors)
• Analysis concludes with a clear "so what" for industry attractiveness

---

TAM/SAM/SOM

What It Is

A hierarchical market sizing framework that narrows from total opportunity to realistic addressable share.

Definitions

• TAM (Total Addressable Market): The total global revenue opportunity if 100% market share were achieved. The theoretical ceiling
• SAM (Serviceable Addressable Market): The portion of TAM within the client's reach — filtered by geography, segment, channel, and capability constraints
• SOM (Serviceable Obtainable Market): The realistic share of SAM the client can capture in the planning horizon, given competition and execution constraints

How to Size

Top-Down Approach (start from industry totals, narrow):

TAM: Global market reports → total industry revenue
SAM: TAM × (relevant segments) × (relevant geographies) × (relevant channels)
SOM: SAM × (realistic share based on competitive position, typically 1-5% for new entrants, 10-20% for established players)

Bottom-Up Approach (start from unit economics, build up):

Target customers × penetration rate × average revenue per customer = SOM
SOM ÷ market share = SAM

Best Practice

• Always run both approaches and reconcile. If they're within 20%, confidence is reasonable. If they diverge >2x, investigate the assumptions driving the gap
• Source each number: "[Statista, 2025]" or "[Analyst calculation: 500K customers × €2K ARPU × 15% penetration]"
• State the year and currency for every figure
• Use ranges when confidence is low: "SAM estimated at €8-12B"

Quality Check

• TAM > SAM > SOM (if not, the definitions are wrong)
• Both top-down and bottom-up approaches attempted
• Every number sourced or clearly labeled as an assumption
• Growth rates specified for each tier (they often differ)

---

Value Chain Analysis

What It Is

Maps the sequence of activities that create and deliver value to the end customer, identifying where value is created, captured, and at risk.

Standard Value Chain (after Porter)

Primary Activities:
Inbound Logistics → Operations → Outbound Logistics → Marketing & Sales → Service

Support Activities:
Infrastructure | HR | Technology | Procurement

How to Apply

1. Map the industry-specific value chain (not the generic Porter version) 2. For each stage, identify:

• Who plays: Which companies operate at this stage?
• Value created: What margin or value-add occurs?
• Competitive dynamics: Is this stage consolidated or fragmented?
• Where the client sits: Which stages does the client own?

3. Identify value migration: Where is margin shifting? Which stages are gaining or losing pricing power? 4. Strategic implication: Should the client integrate forward/backward, or specialize?

Quality Check

• Value chain is industry-specific, not generic
• Each stage has estimated margins or value share
• Analysis identifies where value is migrating and why

---

3 Horizons

What It Is

A growth pipeline framework for sequencing investments across timeframes.

The Three Horizons

• Horizon 1 (0-2 years): Defend and extend the core business. Optimize, grow share, improve profitability. Funds H2 and H3
• Horizon 2 (2-5 years): Scale emerging businesses. New markets, new products, acquisitions. Requires investment but should show traction
• Horizon 3 (5+ years): Create options for future growth. Experiments, bets, R&D, partnerships. Most will fail; a few will become H2

How to Apply

1. Classify the client's portfolio of initiatives across horizons 2. Assess balance: Over-investment in H1 starves future growth; over-investment in H3 risks current profitability 3. Ensure funding flow: H1 profits fund H2/H3 investments 4. Define metrics per horizon: H1 = revenue/margin, H2 = growth rate/market share, H3 = option value/learning

Quality Check

• Each horizon has specific initiatives, not just labels
• There is a clear mechanism for H1 profits to fund H2/H3
• H3 options have defined learning milestones (not just "we'll figure it out")

---

Ansoff Matrix

What It Is

A 2x2 growth strategy framework crossing products (existing vs. new) with markets (existing vs. new).

The Four Strategies

How to Apply

1. Classify the client's growth options into the four quadrants 2. Assess risk vs. return for each option 3. Sequence: Typically exhaust penetration before moving to development or diversification 4. Identify which quadrant the engagement's strategic question falls into

Quality Check

• Growth options are classified into the correct quadrant
• Risk assessment accompanies each option
• Recommendation considers sequencing (don't lead with diversification if penetration has headroom)

Structuring Frameworks

MECE (Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive)

What It Is

A decomposition principle: every element belongs to exactly one category (ME) and all categories together cover the full scope (CE).

How to Apply

1. Define the scope — what is being decomposed? ("Revenue sources" is different from "profit drivers") 2. Choose a cutting dimension — by customer segment, by geography, by product line, by value chain stage 3. Draft categories and test:

• ME test: Can any item fall into two categories? If yes, redefine boundaries
• CE test: Is anything missing? Name one plausible item — does it fit? If not, add a category or widen an existing one

4. Validate depth — each category should be roughly equal in weight. A category containing 80% of the answer paired with four containing 5% each is structurally MECE but analytically useless

Common Cuts

• Revenue: By segment, geography, product, channel, customer type, contract type
• Costs: Fixed vs. variable, direct vs. indirect, by function, by activity
• Market: By end-use, by region, by price tier, by buyer type
• Organization: By function, by business unit, by process, by capability

Quality Check

• No overlaps between categories at any level
• No gaps — a "catch-all" or "other" bucket exceeding 15% signals a structural problem
• Consistent cutting logic within each level (don't mix geography and product in the same tier)
• Maximum 3 levels deep for most analyses; 4+ levels signal over-decomposition

---

Issue Trees

What It Is

A hierarchical decomposition of a question into sub-questions, where answering all sub-questions answers the parent. The root is the governing question; leaves are testable hypotheses or data-gathering tasks.

How to Build

1. State the root question as a yes/no or "what should we do" question

• Good: "Should Client X enter the European cold chain market?"
• Bad: "European cold chain market" (topic, not question)

2. Decompose into 3-5 Level 1 branches (must be MECE) 3. Each branch decomposes into 2-4 sub-questions 4. Stop when you reach questions that can be answered with a single analysis or data point

Standard Issue Tree Patterns

Go/No-Go Decision:

Should we do X?
├── Is the market attractive?
│   ├── Is it large enough?
│   ├── Is it growing?
│   └── Is the competitive structure favorable?
├── Can we win?
│   ├── Do we have the required capabilities?
│   ├── Can we differentiate?
│   └── Can we achieve target economics?
└── Is it worth it?
    ├── What is the expected return?
    ├── What are the risks?
    └── What is the opportunity cost?

Profitability Diagnosis:

Why are profits declining?
├── Revenue problem?
│   ├── Volume decline?
│   └── Price/mix deterioration?
└── Cost problem?
    ├── Variable cost increase?
    └── Fixed cost increase?

Growth Strategy:

How should we grow?
├── Organic growth
│   ├── Expand existing customers
│   ├── Win new customers
│   └── Enter new segments
├── Inorganic growth
│   ├── Acquisitions
│   └── Partnerships/JVs
└── New business models
    ├── Adjacent products/services
    └── Platform/ecosystem play

Quality Check

• Root question is precise and answerable
• Every branch is MECE with its siblings
• Answering all children fully answers the parent
• Leaf nodes are specific enough to assign as research tasks
• Tree is balanced — no branch has 8 children while another has 1

---

Hypothesis-Driven Analysis

What It Is

Start with a proposed answer (the hypothesis), then design analyses to prove or disprove it. This inverts the natural instinct to "gather data first, then conclude" — which wastes time on unfocused research.

How to Apply

1. Form the hypothesis: State a complete, falsifiable answer to the governing question

• Good: "Client X should enter the European cold chain market through acquisition of a mid-sized player because organic entry would take 5+ years and the market window is closing"
• Bad: "The market looks interesting" (not falsifiable)

2. Identify key assumptions: What must be true for the hypothesis to hold? List 3-5 critical assumptions 3. Design analyses: For each assumption, define what data or analysis would confirm or refute it 4. Execute and update: Run the analyses. If an assumption fails, revise the hypothesis — don't force the data to fit 5. Synthesize: State whether the hypothesis is confirmed, modified, or rejected, with evidence

The Hypothesis Stack

Governing hypothesis: "We should acquire Target X at up to €200M"
├── Assumption 1: Market will grow >5% CAGR → Analysis: Market sizing
├── Assumption 2: Target holds defensible position → Analysis: Competitive assessment
├── Assumption 3: Integration costs < €30M → Analysis: Operational DD
├── Assumption 4: Synergies exceed €15M/year → Analysis: Financial model
└── Assumption 5: No regulatory blockers → Analysis: Regulatory screening

Quality Check

• Hypothesis is a complete sentence, not a topic
• Each assumption is independently testable
• You have actively looked for disconfirming evidence, not just confirming data
• You can articulate what would change your mind