Persuasive writing for executive audiences — value propositions, calls to action, cost-of-inaction narratives, and compelling summaries. Use when generating executive summaries, pitch narratives, scenario value propositions, recommendation justifications, or any prose that must drive a decision.
Transforms technical findings into decision-driving prose. Owns value propositions, calls to action, cost-of-inaction narratives, executive summaries, and recommendation justifications across all discovery deliverables.
The best copy does not convince — it reveals what the reader already knows but has not articulated. A C-level executive knows they have technical debt. They do not need to be told. They need the cost of inaction quantified and a clear path shown with options. Copy transforms data into decisions.
$1 — Target audience: ceo, cto, cfo, board, mixed (default: mixed)$2 — Deliverable context: pitch, scenario, roadmap, summary, recommendation (default: summary)Parse from $ARGUMENTS.
Structure: [Quantified benefit] + [for whom] + [eliminating what pain] + [in what timeframe]
Example:
BAD: "Improve the system architecture"
GOOD: "Reduce time-to-market from 12 to 4 weeks, freeing 3 FTE-months/quarter
currently consumed by workarounds in the legacy system"
Pattern: [Quantified current state] → [Trend if no action] → [Cumulative impact] → [Point of no return]
Framing: "Each quarter without action costs [X] and accumulates [Y] of additional technical debt.
In [Z] months, the remediation cost exceeds the transformation cost."
| Phase | Purpose | Technique |
|---|---|---|
| Problem | State pain with data | Metrics, benchmarks, evidence tags |
| Agitate | Show consequences of inaction | COI projection, trend extrapolation |
| Solve | Present solution with options | 3 scenarios, recommended path highlighted |
Structure: [Specific action] + [concrete timeline] + [immediate next step] + [what happens if not]
Example:
BAD: "It is recommended to proceed with modernization"
GOOD: "Approving scenario B (incremental modernization) this week allows
starting Sprint 0 in Q2 and capturing the first quick win (API gateway)
before July. → Next step: alignment workshop with technical team."
| Audience | Tone | Lead With | Avoid |
|---|---|---|---|
| CEO | Strategic, visionary | Competitive advantage, positioning | Technical jargon, implementation details |
| CTO | Technical-strategic | Technical risk, modernization | Excessive simplifications |
| CFO | Financial, quantitative | NPV, payback, cost avoidance | Narratives without numbers |
| Board | Governance, fiduciary | Risk-adjusted ROI, compliance | Operational detail |
| Mixed | Progressive: impact → technical | Impact headline + progressive depth | Assuming a single profile |
| Anti-Pattern | Correction |
|---|---|
| "It is worth noting that..." | Eliminate — go straight to the point |
| "It is important to highlight..." | Eliminate — if it were important, it needs no announcement |
| "It is recommended to consider..." | Recommend directly with evidence |
| Passive voice without agent | Active voice: who does what |
| Numbers without context | Always compare: vs baseline, vs industry, vs target |
| Assertions without evidence | Mandatory tag: [CÓDIGO], [CONFIG], [DOC], [INFERENCIA] |
| Superlatives without support | "The best" → "Superior by X% according to [metric]" |
Before delivery, every copy section must pass:
| Criterion | Check |
|---|---|
| Every claim has evidence tag | [CÓDIGO], [CONFIG], [DOC], [INFERENCIA], [SUPUESTO] |
| Every number has context | vs baseline, vs benchmark, vs target |
| COI is quantified | FTE-months, cost/quarter, trend projection |
| CTA is specific | Action + timeline + next step |
| Zero filler phrases | No filler constructions, no "undoubtedly" |
| Audience tone match | Calibrated per target audience |
| Caso Borde | Estrategia de Manejo |
|---|---|
| No hay datos cuantitativos disponibles | Usar evidencia cualitativa con tags [INFERENCIA] explicitos. Enmarcar como "basado en patrones observados en [N] archivos/modulos/entrevistas". Declarar limitacion en la primera linea del entregable. |
| Multiples audiencias en el mismo documento | Aplicar progressive disclosure: headline ejecutivo + detalle tecnico expandible. Usar callouts diferenciados por audiencia. Nunca asumir un solo perfil de lector. |
| Recomendacion controversial o con riesgo politico | Presentar todas las opciones con igual rigor. Recomendar con evidencia explicita. Documentar dissent en registro de riesgos. Incluir seccion "Consideraciones Alternativas" antes del CTA. |
| El cliente solicita copy en idioma diferente al espanol | Producir en el idioma solicitado manteniendo la estructura y tecnicas. Documentar terminologia clave en ambos idiomas. Priorizar claridad sobre estilo literario. |
| Decision | Justificacion | Alternativa Descartada |
|---|---|---|
| Evidencia antes que afirmacion como regla absoluta | Credibilidad con audiencias ejecutivas requiere datos primero. Un C-level detecta copy sin sustento en segundos. | Afirmar y luego justificar: percibido como opinion no fundamentada. |
| Opciones sobre mandatos (3 escenarios) | El decision-maker elige; el consultor recomienda con evidencia. Aumenta ownership de la decision. | Recomendacion unica: percibida como imposicion, genera resistencia. |
| Conciseness radical sobre exhaustividad | Tiempo de atencion ejecutivo es limitado. Cada palabra debe aportar informacion o mover al lector. | Prosa exhaustiva: pierde la audiencia ejecutiva en el segundo parrafo. |
| COI cuantificado sobre urgencia declarada | "El costo de inaccion es X FTE-meses/trimestre" es verificable y accionable. "Es urgente actuar" es opinion. | Urgencia declarada: no diferencia de cualquier otra recomendacion. |
graph TD
subgraph Core["Core: Copywriting"]
VP[Value Proposition]
COI[Cost-of-Inaction]
CTA[Call to Action]
PAS[Problem-Agitate-Solve]
end
subgraph Inputs["Inputs"]
AUD[Audiencia Target]
FIND[Hallazgos Tecnicos]
METRICS[Metricas y Datos]
CTX[Contexto del Entregable]
end
subgraph Outputs["Outputs"]
EXEC_SUM[Executive Summary]
PITCH[Pitch Narrative]
SCENARIO[Scenario Value Props]
RECO[Recommendation Copy]
end
subgraph Related["Related Skills"]
STORY[storytelling]
DATASTORY[data-storytelling]
TECHWRITE[technical-writing]
EDITORIAL[editorial-director]
end
AUD --> VP
FIND --> PAS
METRICS --> COI
CTX --> CTA
VP --> EXEC_SUM
COI --> PITCH
PAS --> SCENARIO
CTA --> RECO
STORY --> Core
DATASTORY --> METRICS
TECHWRITE --> FIND
EDITORIAL --> Core
Filename: Executive_Summary_{project}_{WIP|Aprobado}.md
# Resumen Ejecutivo: {project}
## Headline
{Una linea: beneficio cuantificado + para quien + eliminando que dolor}
## Situacion Actual
{2-3 parrafos: estado actual con evidencia [TAGS], metricas con contexto}
## Costo de Inaccion
{Proyeccion cuantificada: FTE-meses/trimestre, tendencia, punto de no retorno}
## Opciones
| Escenario | Inversion (FTE-meses) | Beneficio | Timeline | Riesgo |
|---|---|---|---|---|
## Recomendacion
{Escenario recomendado con justificacion basada en evidencia}
## Siguiente Paso
{Accion especifica + timeline + que pasa si no se actua}
Filename: Executive_Summary_{project}_{WIP|Aprobado}.html
HTML self-contained branded (Design System MetodologIA v5). Dark-First Executive. Incluye headline hero con metricas de impacto, COI projection visual, y comparativa de escenarios con CTA destacado. WCAG AA, responsive.
Filename: {fase}_Executive_Summary_{project}_{WIP}.docx
Via python-docx con Design System MetodologIA v5. Cover page, TOC auto, headers/footers branded, tablas zebra. Poppins headings (navy), Montserrat body, gold accents.
Filename: {fase}_Executive_Summary_{cliente}_{WIP}.xlsx
Via openpyxl con MetodologIA Design System v5. Headers con fondo navy y tipografía Poppins en blanco, conditional formatting por escenario y prioridad, auto-filters en todas las columnas, valores directos sin fórmulas.
Filename: {fase}_{entregable}_{cliente}_{WIP}.pptx
Via python-pptx con MetodologIA Design System v5. Slide master con gradiente navy, titulos Poppins, cuerpo Montserrat, acentos gold. Max 20 slides (ejecutiva) / 30 slides (tecnica). Speaker notes con referencias de evidencia. Para comites directivos y presentaciones C-level.
Filename: Pitch_{project}_{WIP|Aprobado}.html
Estructura HTML con secciones:
- Hero: headline con metricas de impacto
- Problem: estado actual con datos y evidencia visual
- Agitate: costo de inaccion con proyeccion temporal
- Solve: 3 escenarios con comparativa visual
- CTA: accion recomendada con timeline y siguiente paso
- Footer: atribucion MetodologIA + evidencia tags summary
Estilo: colores MetodologIA (#6366F1 primary, #0F172A background)
| Dimension | Peso | Criterio |
|---|---|---|
| Trigger Accuracy | 10% | Se activa ante solicitudes de copy ejecutivo, pitch, value proposition, CTA, o resumen persuasivo |
| Completeness | 25% | Incluye value proposition construida, COI cuantificado, CTA especifico, y tono calibrado por audiencia |
| Clarity | 20% | Cero frases de relleno; cada afirmacion tiene evidencia; voz activa predominante |
| Robustness | 20% | Produce copy efectivo con datos parciales, multiples audiencias, y recomendaciones controversiales |
| Efficiency | 10% | Genera copy listo para entrega con parametros minimos (audiencia + contexto) |
| Value Density | 15% | Cada parrafo contiene informacion accionable; ratio de conversion dato-a-decision es alto |
Umbral minimo: 7/10
metodologia-storytelling — Arco narrativo cross-deliverable que el copy apoyametodologia-data-storytelling — Metricas interpretadas que el copy consumemetodologia-technical-writing — Precision documental que el copy transforma en prosa ejecutivametodologia-editorial-director — Coordinacion editorial cross-entregable