{ "kind": "framework", "value": "comparison-table", "collectionKey": "slides:framework:comparison-table:all-document-kinds:all-producers:all-orientations", "filters": { "documentKinds": [], "sourceTypes": [], "orientations": [] }, "total": 318, "page": 1, "pageSize": 24, "pageCount": 14, "rows": [ { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b635-9341c5941216", "docSlug": "5415c04bdc8a86e3", "documentTitle": "Agile Innovation Brief", "authorId": "Bain", "authorName": "Bain", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "portrait", "aspectRatio": 0.773, "pageNumber": 10, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_options", "notes": "The slide contrasts Agile vs. Traditional across six dimensions: Market environment, Customer involvement, Innovation type, Modularity of work, Impact of interim mistakes, and Corporate culture.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "The slide uses a table to contrast Agile and Traditional methodologies across specific criteria.", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b635-9341c5941216/10", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b635-9341c5941216", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b635-9341c5941216#slide-10", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 10, "from": 10, "name": "Tale Two Worlds", "slug": "04-tale-two-worlds", "bestFor": "Competitive analysis, benchmarking, case for change", "matchId": "019dd95a-088c-724c-b310-f14bc60149f1", "evidence": "Table 'Conditions favorable to Agile vs. traditional methods' with two opposing columns across six dimensions.", "position": 4, "objective": "Contrast Agile-friendly vs traditional-friendly conditions", "structure": "Current State -> Desired State / Benchmark -> The Gap & Implication", "confidence": 90, "description": "Show the gap between two states to drive urgency or highlight opportunity" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 10, "from": 7, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87e5-6eceeb01a2fb", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Solution & Approach", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-solution-approach", "evidence": "Waterfall vs Agile table, three impediments, conditions-favorable framework.", "position": 3, "confidence": 85, "parentBeatName": "Turn", "parentBeatSlug": "turn" }, { "to": 14, "from": 10, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87e5-8136de322fe4", "arcName": "The Transformation Tale", "arcSlug": "transformation-tale", "beatName": "The Bridge", "beatSlug": "transformation-tale-the-bridge", "evidence": "When-Agile-works conditions, 5 pillars, value-bridge math from concurrent to focused.", "position": 3, "confidence": 60, "parentBeatName": "Resolution", "parentBeatSlug": "resolution" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b638-e91d3b8478cc", "docSlug": "9fbedbfea0231cbe", "documentTitle": "AI Healthcare Errors", "authorId": "McKinsey", "authorName": "McKinsey", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.333, "pageNumber": 19, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_peers", "notes": "The slide uses a dot-matrix visualization to represent barrier intensity (Major, Minor, Not a barrier) across two industry sectors.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "The slide compares two sectors across a shared set of criteria.", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b638-e91d3b8478cc/19", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b638-e91d3b8478cc", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b638-e91d3b8478cc#slide-19", "loopMatches": [], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 26, "from": 10, "beatId": "9b6e4ffe-95ca-40d4-92d5-70f2cd8f60f8", "arcName": "Problem-Agitate-Solution", "arcSlug": "problem-agitate-solution", "beatName": "Solution (Provide relief)", "beatSlug": "problem-agitate-solution-solution-provide-relief", "evidence": "The deck offers AI as a solution to prevent healthcare errors and improve patient outcomes.", "position": 2, "confidence": 0.8, "parentBeatName": "Resolution", "parentBeatSlug": "resolution" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b635-9ba6afcabd7f", "docSlug": "0fc3aba985cbd390", "documentTitle": "Altagamma 2018 Worldwide Luxury Market Monitor", "authorId": "Bain", "authorName": "Bain", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.777, "pageNumber": 15, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_peers", "notes": "The slide uses a custom icon-based legend to represent growth trends (up, down, flat).", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "The slide organizes data into a grid comparing regions and consumer segments.", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b635-9ba6afcabd7f/15", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b635-9ba6afcabd7f", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b635-9ba6afcabd7f#slide-15", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 16, "from": 9, "name": "Tale Two Worlds", "slug": "04-tale-two-worlds", "bestFor": "Competitive analysis, benchmarking, case for change", "matchId": "019dd95a-088c-724c-b311-257012010c4d", "evidence": "p10 explicit 2017 vs 2025F stacked bars by geography and nationality; p13 2x callout", "position": 2, "objective": "Show China overtaking mature markets by 2025", "structure": "Current State -> Desired State / Benchmark -> The Gap & Implication", "confidence": 85, "description": "Show the gap between two states to drive urgency or highlight opportunity" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 45, "from": 8, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87e5-a9e65c2a1e0d", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Implications (So What)", "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-implications-so-what", "evidence": "Six themes unpacking how 'Luxury 2025 will be a different place'", "position": 2, "confidence": 80, "parentBeatName": "Reflection", "parentBeatSlug": "reflection" }, { "to": 40, "from": 10, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87e5-b85e99c5ccbf", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Solution & Approach", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-solution-approach", "evidence": "Six themes: China, digital, footprint, youth, cultures, one market", "position": 3, "confidence": 55, "parentBeatName": "Turn", "parentBeatSlug": "turn" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e5735b54e9cc", "docSlug": "0798c0fb1aaf0664", "documentTitle": "Budgetanalyse af Forsvaret 2017 Materialesamling Del 2", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.445, "pageNumber": 332, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_options", "notes": "The slide uses a matrix-like structure to compare organizational models.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "The slide presents a structured comparison of four organizational models across pros and cons.", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e5735b54e9cc/332", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e5735b54e9cc", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e5735b54e9cc#slide-332", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 365, "from": 322, "name": "Scenario Fork", "slug": "35-scenario-fork", "bestFor": "Strategic planning, risk analysis, board presentations", "matchId": "019dd95a-088b-72c8-b7e2-6e9175aa6c84", "evidence": "5 designkriterier -> 4 konkrete modeller (page 334-336) -> recommendation + 14 mio. kr. kursusadm.", "position": 11, "objective": "Compare four models for administrative faellesskaber plus kursusadministration", "structure": "The Decision Point -> Scenario A (If X) -> Scenario B (If Y) -> Scenario C (If Z) -> Recommendation", "confidence": 86, "description": "Present multiple futures based on different assumptions or decisions" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 420, "from": 322, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87da-2a66536a5837", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Evidence & Proof", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-evidence-proof", "evidence": "Admin fællesskaber + nyordning af logistik + insourcing benchmarks and business cases.", "position": 4, "confidence": 92, "parentBeatName": "Evidence", "parentBeatSlug": "evidence" }, { "to": 365, "from": 166, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87da-37e90642ab06", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Implications (So What)", "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-implications-so-what", "evidence": "Potentialeestimater, benchmark gaps, comparison tables.", "position": 2, "confidence": 70, "parentBeatName": "Reflection", "parentBeatSlug": "reflection" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e5735b54e9cc", "docSlug": "0798c0fb1aaf0664", "documentTitle": "Budgetanalyse af Forsvaret 2017 Materialesamling Del 2", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.445, "pageNumber": 333, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_options", "notes": "The slide evaluates organizational models for administrative consolidation, emphasizing that physical proximity can be maintained across all models through management prioritization.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Structured comparison of organizational models", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e5735b54e9cc/333", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e5735b54e9cc", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e5735b54e9cc#slide-333", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 365, "from": 322, "name": "Scenario Fork", "slug": "35-scenario-fork", "bestFor": "Strategic planning, risk analysis, board presentations", "matchId": "019dd95a-088b-72c8-b7e2-6e9175aa6c84", "evidence": "5 designkriterier -> 4 konkrete modeller (page 334-336) -> recommendation + 14 mio. kr. kursusadm.", "position": 11, "objective": "Compare four models for administrative faellesskaber plus kursusadministration", "structure": "The Decision Point -> Scenario A (If X) -> Scenario B (If Y) -> Scenario C (If Z) -> Recommendation", "confidence": 86, "description": "Present multiple futures based on different assumptions or decisions" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 420, "from": 322, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87da-2a66536a5837", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Evidence & Proof", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-evidence-proof", "evidence": "Admin fællesskaber + nyordning af logistik + insourcing benchmarks and business cases.", "position": 4, "confidence": 92, "parentBeatName": "Evidence", "parentBeatSlug": "evidence" }, { "to": 365, "from": 166, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87da-37e90642ab06", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Implications (So What)", "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-implications-so-what", "evidence": "Potentialeestimater, benchmark gaps, comparison tables.", "position": 2, "confidence": 70, "parentBeatName": "Reflection", "parentBeatSlug": "reflection" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e5735b54e9cc", "docSlug": "0798c0fb1aaf0664", "documentTitle": "Budgetanalyse af Forsvaret 2017 Materialesamling Del 2", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.445, "pageNumber": 334, "slideType": "strategic_options", "function": "compare_options", "notes": "The slide compares four organizational models (M1-M4) for administrative consolidation.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "The slide uses a structured table to compare four distinct organizational models across four criteria.", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e5735b54e9cc/334", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e5735b54e9cc", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e5735b54e9cc#slide-334", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 365, "from": 322, "name": "Scenario Fork", "slug": "35-scenario-fork", "bestFor": "Strategic planning, risk analysis, board presentations", "matchId": "019dd95a-088b-72c8-b7e2-6e9175aa6c84", "evidence": "5 designkriterier -> 4 konkrete modeller (page 334-336) -> recommendation + 14 mio. kr. kursusadm.", "position": 11, "objective": "Compare four models for administrative faellesskaber plus kursusadministration", "structure": "The Decision Point -> Scenario A (If X) -> Scenario B (If Y) -> Scenario C (If Z) -> Recommendation", "confidence": 86, "description": "Present multiple futures based on different assumptions or decisions" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 420, "from": 322, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87da-2a66536a5837", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Evidence & Proof", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-evidence-proof", "evidence": "Admin fællesskaber + nyordning af logistik + insourcing benchmarks and business cases.", "position": 4, "confidence": 92, "parentBeatName": "Evidence", "parentBeatSlug": "evidence" }, { "to": 365, "from": 166, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87da-37e90642ab06", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Implications (So What)", "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-implications-so-what", "evidence": "Potentialeestimater, benchmark gaps, comparison tables.", "position": 2, "confidence": 70, "parentBeatName": "Reflection", "parentBeatSlug": "reflection" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b635-a487f65f15a8", "docSlug": "b3d9633a43b0e706", "documentTitle": "China Luxury Digital Playbook", "authorId": "Bain", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 17, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_peers", "notes": "The slide uses icons to represent different e-commerce channels and compares market share percentages across two geographic groupings.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "The slide presents a structured comparison of market shares across different channels and regions.", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b635-a487f65f15a8/17", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b635-a487f65f15a8", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b635-a487f65f15a8#slide-17", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 17, "from": 9, "name": "So What Cascade", "slug": "41-so-what-cascade", "bestFor": "Data presentations, executive summaries, driving to recommendations", "matchId": "019dd95a-088c-724c-b311-aea46590eb97", "evidence": "p9 lists the 6 trends as headline insights; p10-17 deliver one data-driven 'so what' per trend.", "position": 3, "objective": "Preview six trends, then march through evidence for each", "structure": "The Data -> So What? (Insight 1) -> So What? (Insight 2) -> So What? (The Action)", "confidence": 75, "description": "Chain insights together, each answering 'so what?' until you reach the actionable conclusion" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 17, "from": 10, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87e6-473bbb8a12a2", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Evidence & Proof", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-evidence-proof", "evidence": "Each of the 6 trends backed by data slides 10-17", "position": 4, "confidence": 82, "parentBeatName": "Evidence", "parentBeatSlug": "evidence" }, { "to": 17, "from": 9, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87e6-5073009a930f", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Implications (So What)", "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-implications-so-what", "evidence": "Six trends re-defining luxury digital, each evidenced", "position": 2, "confidence": 65, "parentBeatName": "Reflection", "parentBeatSlug": "reflection" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-d3738a63434c", "docSlug": "2862941a98bffda6", "documentTitle": "Corporate Ventures in Sweden", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.445, "pageNumber": 9, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_options", "notes": "The slide uses a matrix-like structure to compare strategic options. The icons represent the four categories.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "The slide presents a structured comparison of four strategic options across five criteria.", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-d3738a63434c/9", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-d3738a63434c", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-d3738a63434c#slide-9", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 10, "from": 8, "name": "Mece Breakdown", "slug": "40-mece-breakdown", "bestFor": "Problem structuring, ensuring completeness, strategic analysis", "matchId": "019dd95a-088b-72c8-b7e2-d961b1a1cab4", "evidence": "CV positioned in Ansoff matrix, contrasted with M&A, then split into 3 vehicles × 7 industries.", "position": 3, "objective": "Introduce Corporate Venturing as a complementary, MECE-decomposed solution space", "structure": "The Whole -> Category A (distinct) -> Category B (distinct) -> Category C (distinct) -> Complete Coverage", "confidence": 82, "description": "Divide a complex topic into mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive categories" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 10, "from": 8, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87da-c40e152757b5", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Solution & Approach", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-solution-approach", "evidence": "CV expands Ansoff matrix; three vehicles (CVC, accelerators, labs) by industry.", "position": 3, "confidence": 88, "parentBeatName": "Turn", "parentBeatSlug": "turn" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b638-e29283e73180", "docSlug": "62a3ea47159781a7", "documentTitle": "Forsyningssektorens Effektiviseringspotentiale", "authorId": "McKinsey", "authorName": "McKinsey", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.333, "pageNumber": 97, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_options", "notes": "The slide uses a vertical gradient arrow on the left to represent increasing incentive levels.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Table structure comparing regulatory regimes", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b638-e29283e73180/97", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b638-e29283e73180", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b638-e29283e73180#slide-97", "loopMatches": [], "arcBeatMatches": [], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b638-e29283e73180", "docSlug": "62a3ea47159781a7", "documentTitle": "Forsyningssektorens Effektiviseringspotentiale", "authorId": "McKinsey", "authorName": "McKinsey", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.333, "pageNumber": 110, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_options", "notes": "The table compares five types of entities: Municipal administration, § 60-joint venture, A/S and ApS, Self-governing institutions, and A.m.b.a.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "The slide uses a structured grid to compare attributes across multiple entities.", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b638-e29283e73180/110", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b638-e29283e73180", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b638-e29283e73180#slide-110", "loopMatches": [], "arcBeatMatches": [], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b638-2a4c3fe346c9", "docSlug": "f355bb3ba498875b", "documentTitle": "International Comparison of Australia’s Freight and Supply Chain Performance 2019", "authorId": "LEK", "authorName": "L.E.K.", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.445, "pageNumber": 28, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_options", "notes": "The slide uses a qualitative scoring system (pie charts) to indicate adherence to selection criteria.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "The slide uses a structured table to compare two options against a set of criteria.", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b638-2a4c3fe346c9/28", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b638-2a4c3fe346c9", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b638-2a4c3fe346c9#slide-28", "loopMatches": [], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 30, "from": 21, "beatId": "5ca477f8-9900-4511-86d9-1f3af4aa4d14", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Solution & Approach", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-solution-approach", "evidence": "The document outlines a framework for future supply chain benchmarking and presents recommendations for improvement.", "position": 3, "confidence": 0.8, "parentBeatName": "Turn", "parentBeatSlug": "turn" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b638-2a4c3fe346c9", "docSlug": "f355bb3ba498875b", "documentTitle": "International Comparison of Australia’s Freight and Supply Chain Performance 2019", "authorId": "LEK", "authorName": "L.E.K.", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.445, "pageNumber": 89, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_options", "notes": "The slide uses a structured table format to map specific issues to potential solutions and their expected impact levels.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Structured grid comparing issues, impacts, and opportunities.", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b638-2a4c3fe346c9/89", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b638-2a4c3fe346c9", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b638-2a4c3fe346c9#slide-89", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 90, "from": 87, "name": "Quick Win Big Bet", "slug": "47-quick-win-big-bet", "bestFor": "Transformation planning, 100-day plans, resource allocation", "matchId": "08dc3540-f6ec-431c-a219-56e462b79536", "evidence": "The document presents a list of opportunities for improvement, with a focus on quick wins and big bets.", "position": 1, "objective": "To prioritize opportunities for improvement in the waste and wine supply chains", "structure": "The Full List -> Quick Wins (Low effort, High impact) -> Big Bets (High effort, High impact) -> Sequenced Roadmap", "confidence": 0.6, "description": "Separate initiatives into immediate wins and longer-term strategic bets" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b639-093f3fd1ecfe", "docSlug": "5ee5a9db2750184a", "documentTitle": "Lebanon Economic Vision", "authorId": "McKinsey", "authorName": "McKinsey", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.333, "pageNumber": 311, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_options", "notes": "The slide uses a B2 label, suggesting it is part of a series of comparative analyses.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "The slide is structured as a side-by-side comparison of advantages and disadvantages across four categories.", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b639-093f3fd1ecfe/311", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b639-093f3fd1ecfe", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b639-093f3fd1ecfe#slide-311", "loopMatches": [], "arcBeatMatches": [], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b639-093f3fd1ecfe", "docSlug": "5ee5a9db2750184a", "documentTitle": "Lebanon Economic Vision", "authorId": "McKinsey", "authorName": "McKinsey", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.333, "pageNumber": 372, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_peers", "notes": "The table uses a 1-5 scale where 1 is most attractive and 5 is least attractive. Beirut's scores are highlighted with green (good) or red (bad) backgrounds.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Structured grid comparing multiple entities across multiple criteria.", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b639-093f3fd1ecfe/372", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b639-093f3fd1ecfe", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b639-093f3fd1ecfe#slide-372", "loopMatches": [], "arcBeatMatches": [], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b639-093f3fd1ecfe", "docSlug": "5ee5a9db2750184a", "documentTitle": "Lebanon Economic Vision", "authorId": "McKinsey", "authorName": "McKinsey", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.333, "pageNumber": 373, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_peers", "notes": "The table uses a 1-5 scale where 1 is most attractive and 5 is least attractive. Lebanon (Beirut) is highlighted with specific color coding (green for strengths, red for weaknesses).", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "The slide presents a structured comparison of cities across multiple weighted criteria.", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b639-093f3fd1ecfe/373", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b639-093f3fd1ecfe", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b639-093f3fd1ecfe#slide-373", "loopMatches": [], "arcBeatMatches": [], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b639-093f3fd1ecfe", "docSlug": "5ee5a9db2750184a", "documentTitle": "Lebanon Economic Vision", "authorId": "McKinsey", "authorName": "McKinsey", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.333, "pageNumber": 596, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_options", "notes": "The slide uses a color-coded system (green plus/red minus) to denote positive and negative characteristics of each technology.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Structured comparison of technologies across attributes", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b639-093f3fd1ecfe/596", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b639-093f3fd1ecfe", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b639-093f3fd1ecfe#slide-596", "loopMatches": [], "arcBeatMatches": [], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-d42adb9ada21", "docSlug": "f48d45408c26f5a2", "documentTitle": "Loose dogs in Dallas Strategic Recommendations", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "portrait", "aspectRatio": 0.773, "pageNumber": 248, "slideType": "client_example", "function": "present_solution", "notes": "The slide uses a comparison table to contrast historical negative comments with recommended professional responses.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "The slide uses a table to compare historical comments with recommended responses.", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-d42adb9ada21/248", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-d42adb9ada21", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-d42adb9ada21#slide-248", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 267, "from": 161, "name": "Build Up", "slug": "33-build-up", "bestFor": "Pricing justification, cost estimation, market sizing", "matchId": "019dd95a-088b-72c8-b7e5-5934a57a4387", "evidence": "Repeated triplet pattern: e.g., p.166/167/168, p.178/179/180, p.188/189", "position": 18, "objective": "For each initiative, build up Overview → Estimated Impact → Resource Requirements", "structure": "The Base -> Add Component A -> Add Component B -> Add Component C -> The Total", "confidence": 82, "description": "Start from zero and add components to arrive at a total" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-77c8b6b9b3a0", "docSlug": "c2bc13ff7529e2ae", "documentTitle": "Out @ Work Barometer", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 7, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_peers", "notes": "The table uses color coding to highlight 'Top 3 criteria' (green) and 'LGBT+ related criteria in top 3' (blue).", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "The slide presents a structured comparison of rankings across multiple categories and geographies.", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-77c8b6b9b3a0/7", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-77c8b6b9b3a0", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-77c8b6b9b3a0#slide-7", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 8, "from": 7, "name": "Aha Moment", "slug": "03-aha-moment", "bestFor": "Data-heavy sections, research findings, analytical arguments", "matchId": "019dd95a-088b-72c8-b7e6-496812160171", "evidence": "Two ranked tables surface the insight that LGBT+ culture is #1 criterion and that top attributes are 'concrete guarantees, not enough'.", "position": 2, "objective": "Reveal what LGBT+ talent actually values in employers", "structure": "The Problem/Question -> What the Data Shows -> The Insight", "confidence": 70, "description": "Establish a tension, present data, then deliver the insight that changes everything" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 8, "from": 7, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87de-e13e52aa33f7", "arcName": "The Onion", "arcSlug": "onion", "beatName": "Deeper Layer", "beatSlug": "onion-deeper-layer", "evidence": "What LGBT+ talent actually values; concrete guarantees lead but aren't enough", "position": 3, "confidence": 72, "parentBeatName": "Development", "parentBeatSlug": "development" }, { "to": 8, "from": 3, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87de-ef79da10a66c", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Facts (What)", "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-facts-what", "evidence": "Survey data on out-rates, comfort, criteria, attributes", "position": 1, "confidence": 55, "parentBeatName": "Setup", "parentBeatSlug": "setup" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-78c20c8fd595", "docSlug": "b12bcf596ad5dacd", "documentTitle": "Out @ Work Barometer The Paradox of LGBT+ Talent", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 7, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_peers", "notes": "The slide uses a heatmap-style ranking table where cells are color-coded to indicate if a criterion is in the top 3 overall or specifically LGBT+ related.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "The slide presents a structured comparison of rankings across multiple categories and geographies.", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-78c20c8fd595/7", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-78c20c8fd595", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-78c20c8fd595#slide-7", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 8, "from": 7, "name": "Voice Of Customer", "slug": "51-voice-of-customer", "bestFor": "Product strategy, customer experience, market research", "matchId": "019dd95a-088b-72c8-b7e6-58b23ea012bb", "evidence": "p.7 ranks criteria from LGBT+ talent survey; p.8 maps attributes companies need.", "position": 2, "objective": "Show what LGBT+ talent values and what companies must offer", "structure": "What Customers Say (Verbatim) -> The Pattern Across Voices -> The Insight -> The Response", "confidence": 75, "description": "Let customer quotes and feedback drive the narrative and validate the insight" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 7, "from": 2, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87de-fbb8a20839d2", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Facts (What)", "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-facts-what", "evidence": "Survey context + country benchmark data + criteria ranking.", "position": 1, "confidence": 72, "parentBeatName": "Setup", "parentBeatSlug": "setup" }, { "to": 8, "from": 7, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87df-0f9b038bcf97", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Solution & Approach", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-solution-approach", "evidence": "Top criteria + attributes companies must embrace.", "position": 3, "confidence": 55, "parentBeatName": "Turn", "parentBeatSlug": "turn" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b638-f79920e0da0e", "docSlug": "4271f4524e03d677", "documentTitle": "Purdue High Impact Interventions", "authorId": "McKinsey", "authorName": null, "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "portrait", "aspectRatio": 0.773, "pageNumber": 19, "slideType": "strategic_options", "function": "compare_options", "notes": "The slide presents a strategic framework for contracting, likely used in a pharmaceutical or healthcare payer context.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "The slide uses a structured grid to compare three distinct contracting options across common dimensions.", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b638-f79920e0da0e/19", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b638-f79920e0da0e", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b638-f79920e0da0e#slide-19", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 32, "from": 15, "name": "Cost Of Inaction", "slug": "27-cost-of-inaction", "bestFor": "Urgent budget requests, compliance, risk mitigation", "matchId": "e46ba4ce-8a8d-4579-a63f-34be26f97259", "evidence": "Barriers for execution, potential for impact at CVS Med D", "position": 0, "objective": "Highlighting the cost of inaction for Purdue", "structure": "The Status Quo -> The Hidden Costs Accumulating -> The Future State of Inaction -> The Tipping Point", "confidence": 0.7, "description": "Quantify what happens if the audience does nothing" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 24, "from": 16, "beatId": "e4a6b102-c3a7-4a0d-829b-c5ea4a235bf6", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Solution & Approach", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-solution-approach", "evidence": "Three innovative contracting options, MME contract offering, Event-Based Contract offering, PMPM contract offering", "position": 2, "confidence": 0.8, "parentBeatName": "Turn", "parentBeatSlug": "turn" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-bc8e3e952c51", "docSlug": "bc9c22881d997435", "documentTitle": "Reshaping NYCHA support functions", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.401, "pageNumber": 15, "slideType": "appendix_data", "function": "compare_peers", "notes": "The slide uses a diamond-marked matrix to indicate the presence of specific functional departments within different organizations.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "The slide presents two side-by-side matrices comparing functional coverage across different entities.", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-bc8e3e952c51/15", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-bc8e3e952c51", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-bc8e3e952c51#slide-15", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 16, "from": 14, "name": "Mece Breakdown", "slug": "40-mece-breakdown", "bestFor": "Problem structuring, ensuring completeness, strategic analysis", "matchId": "019dd95a-088b-72c8-b7e6-ee09643d2eab", "evidence": "p14 'lenses to identify opps' + p16 'Four types of opportunities' presented as MECE.", "position": 2, "objective": "Lay out the lenses & four opportunity types that structure the engagement", "structure": "The Whole -> Category A (distinct) -> Category B (distinct) -> Category C (distinct) -> Complete Coverage", "confidence": 85, "description": "Divide a complex topic into mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive categories" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 23, "from": 14, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87df-e587ebad39a3", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Problem & Complication", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-problem-complication", "evidence": "Lenses to identify opps; '$16B challenges, mutually reinforcing' on p23.", "position": 2, "confidence": 95, "parentBeatName": "Complication", "parentBeatSlug": "complication" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-bc8e3e952c51", "docSlug": "bc9c22881d997435", "documentTitle": "Reshaping NYCHA support functions", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.401, "pageNumber": 100, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_peers", "notes": "The table highlights NYCHA's unique position with a red dashed box around the NYCHA column.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "The slide uses a table to compare NYCHA against peer PHAs across multiple attributes.", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-bc8e3e952c51/100", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-bc8e3e952c51", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-bc8e3e952c51#slide-100", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 102, "from": 95, "name": "Benchmark Gap", "slug": "39-benchmark-gap", "bestFor": "Performance improvement, competitive analysis, target setting", "matchId": "019dd95a-088b-72c8-b7e7-1e9daff2c96d", "evidence": "p98 governance framework; p100-101 'unique vs PHAs / inconsistent with best practice'; p102 must-do changes.", "position": 14, "objective": "Diagnose NYCHA board governance against PHA peers and corporate best practice, then recommend changes", "structure": "Our Performance -> Industry Average -> Best-in-Class -> The Gap = The Opportunity", "confidence": 80, "description": "Compare performance against best-in-class to quantify the opportunity" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b636-a5c8f404e936", "docSlug": "0eecd7debfaa9618", "documentTitle": "The future of M&A 2022 M&A Trends Survey", "authorId": "Deloitte", "authorName": "Deloitte", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 35, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_options", "notes": "The slide highlights a shift in defensive M&A strategy from simple liquidity preservation to building operational resiliency.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "The slide presents a side-by-side comparison of priorities between two distinct groups (Corporate vs PEI) using a table format.", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b636-a5c8f404e936/35", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b636-a5c8f404e936", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b636-a5c8f404e936#slide-35", "loopMatches": [], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 38, "from": 21, "beatId": "9e21a798-58c7-4a66-b78d-917ce69cbbce", "arcName": "Monroe's Motivated Sequence", "arcSlug": "monroes-sequence", "beatName": "Action", "beatSlug": "monroes-sequence-action", "evidence": "Managing M&A today and next steps", "position": 3, "confidence": 0.8, "parentBeatName": "Resolution", "parentBeatSlug": "resolution" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b638-bb8662e8046e", "docSlug": "0f638186bb9b059e", "documentTitle": "UK Electricity Efficiency Potential", "authorId": "McKinsey", "authorName": null, "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.333, "pageNumber": 60, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_options", "notes": null, "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "The slide uses a structured grid to compare four distinct market-based incentive archetypes across six specific criteria.", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b638-bb8662e8046e/60", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b638-bb8662e8046e", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b638-bb8662e8046e#slide-60", "loopMatches": [], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 77, "from": 6, "beatId": "02a14110-f7eb-4a8e-ad6c-56f071f97bab", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Evidence & Proof", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-evidence-proof", "evidence": "The document provides data tables and analysis to support the potential for electricity efficiency measures.", "position": 2, "confidence": 0.8, "parentBeatName": "Evidence", "parentBeatSlug": "evidence" }, { "to": 129, "from": 53, "beatId": "9060aec2-6eb2-4c62-ad0e-6e1552b9219e", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Impact & Next Steps", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-impact-next-steps", "evidence": "The document discusses design options and policy mechanisms to capture the electricity efficiency potential.", "position": 3, "confidence": 0.8, "parentBeatName": "Resolution", "parentBeatSlug": "resolution" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true } ] }