{
  "kind": "framework",
  "value": "proxy-contest-advocacy",
  "collectionKey": "slides:framework:proxy-contest-advocacy:all-document-kinds:all-producers:all-orientations",
  "filters": {
    "documentKinds": [],
    "sourceTypes": [],
    "orientations": []
  },
  "total": 1,
  "page": 1,
  "pageSize": 24,
  "pageCount": 1,
  "rows": [
    {
      "docId": "019dd923-622b-71dc-a6dd-c53cc812b578",
      "docSlug": "be2b089ae734",
      "documentTitle": "Multiple REITs (21 underperformers)",
      "authorId": "26_Land_and_Buildings",
      "authorName": "Land and Buildings",
      "documentKindSlug": "research-note",
      "documentKindLabel": "Research note",
      "sourceTypeSlug": "activist_investor",
      "sourceTypeLabel": "Activist investor",
      "presentationDate": "2026-04-01 00:00:00",
      "orientation": "portrait",
      "aspectRatio": 0.7777778,
      "pageNumber": 5,
      "slideType": "peer_benchmark",
      "function": "compare_peers",
      "notes": "The slide uses a 'Proxy Compensation Spotlight' format to advocate for shareholder action against specific boards.",
      "imagePath": null,
      "matchCount": 1,
      "evidence": "The slide structure explicitly links performance data to a call-to-action for shareholders to vote against compensation committees.",
      "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-622b-71dc-a6dd-c53cc812b578/5",
      "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-622b-71dc-a6dd-c53cc812b578",
      "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-622b-71dc-a6dd-c53cc812b578#slide-5",
      "loopMatches": [
        {
          "to": 11,
          "from": 4,
          "name": "Benchmark Gap",
          "slug": "39-benchmark-gap",
          "bestFor": "Performance improvement, competitive analysis, target setting",
          "matchId": "f3efd905-b1e1-44ef-9af9-5c8ef0e1fc1a",
          "evidence": "The document uses peer benchmarks to highlight the gap in compensation.",
          "position": 0,
          "objective": "Highlight the gap in compensation between underperforming REITs and their peers.",
          "structure": "Our Performance -> Industry Average -> Best-in-Class -> The Gap = The Opportunity",
          "confidence": 0.7,
          "description": "Compare performance against best-in-class to quantify the opportunity"
        },
        {
          "to": 14,
          "from": 1,
          "name": "Cost Of Inaction",
          "slug": "27-cost-of-inaction",
          "bestFor": "Urgent budget requests, compliance, risk mitigation",
          "matchId": "86fc5371-9aea-449c-8499-cd929ed7099b",
          "evidence": "The document implies that the cost of inaction is excessive compensation and continued underperformance.",
          "position": 1,
          "objective": "Emphasize the cost of inaction in adjusting executive compensation.",
          "structure": "The Status Quo -> The Hidden Costs Accumulating -> The Future State of Inaction -> The Tipping Point",
          "confidence": 0.6,
          "description": "Quantify what happens if the audience does nothing"
        }
      ],
      "arcBeatMatches": [
        {
          "to": 11,
          "from": 3,
          "beatId": "8749cc7c-d193-40a9-8168-7c76075caa33",
          "arcName": "Problem-Agitate-Solution",
          "arcSlug": "problem-agitate-solution",
          "beatName": "Agitate (Make it worse)",
          "beatSlug": "problem-agitate-solution-agitate-make-it-worse",
          "evidence": "The document agitates the problem by providing precedent tables, peer benchmarks, and highlighting the gap in compensation.",
          "position": 1,
          "confidence": 0.8,
          "parentBeatName": "Development",
          "parentBeatSlug": "development"
        }
      ],
      "imagePathAlt": null,
      "thumbSrc": null,
      "thumbSrcAlt": null,
      "locked": true
    }
  ]
}