{ "kind": "loop", "value": "07-elimination", "collectionKey": "slides:loop:07-elimination:all-document-kinds:all-producers:all-orientations", "filters": { "documentKinds": [], "sourceTypes": [], "orientations": [] }, "total": 34, "page": 1, "pageSize": 24, "pageCount": 2, "rows": [ { "docId": "019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5d-16c49afe5bce", "docSlug": "0d3bb1f27a7276c0", "documentTitle": "2024 Executive Perspectives AI Unlocked Value Creation with AI", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 3, "slideType": "strategic_options", "function": "present_solution", "notes": "Uses BCG's Deploy-Reshape-Invent framework.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Position 'Reshape' as the winning play vs Deploy / Invent and define what leaders do", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5d-16c49afe5bce/3", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5d-16c49afe5bce", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5d-16c49afe5bce#slide-3", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 4, "from": 3, "name": "Elimination", "slug": "07-elimination", "bestFor": "Decision justification, recommendation defense, skeptical stakeholders", "matchId": "019dd95a-07fe-70ce-8d40-7ff296e84116", "evidence": "Three plays presented side-by-side; callout 'AI leaders focus on reshaping functions' makes the choice; p.4 explains the leader playbook.", "position": 1, "objective": "Position 'Reshape' as the winning play vs Deploy / Invent and define what leaders do", "structure": "The Options -> Why Not A -> Why Not B -> Why C is the Answer", "confidence": 70, "description": "Systematically rule out alternatives to arrive at the only viable conclusion" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 4, "from": 3, "beatId": "019dd95a-0682-776c-8e38-74fe250440b6", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Solution & Approach", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-problem-complication", "evidence": "Deploy-Reshape-Invent framework + 6 success factors stated upfront.", "position": 2, "confidence": 78, "parentBeatName": "Complication", "parentBeatSlug": "complication" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5d-16c49afe5bce", "docSlug": "0d3bb1f27a7276c0", "documentTitle": "2024 Executive Perspectives AI Unlocked Value Creation with AI", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 4, "slideType": "key_takeaways", "function": "summarize", "notes": "Includes a QR code for a publication titled 'Where's the Value in AI?'.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Position 'Reshape' as the winning play vs Deploy / Invent and define what leaders do", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5d-16c49afe5bce/4", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5d-16c49afe5bce", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5d-16c49afe5bce#slide-4", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 4, "from": 3, "name": "Elimination", "slug": "07-elimination", "bestFor": "Decision justification, recommendation defense, skeptical stakeholders", "matchId": "019dd95a-07fe-70ce-8d40-7ff296e84116", "evidence": "Three plays presented side-by-side; callout 'AI leaders focus on reshaping functions' makes the choice; p.4 explains the leader playbook.", "position": 1, "objective": "Position 'Reshape' as the winning play vs Deploy / Invent and define what leaders do", "structure": "The Options -> Why Not A -> Why Not B -> Why C is the Answer", "confidence": 70, "description": "Systematically rule out alternatives to arrive at the only viable conclusion" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 4, "from": 3, "beatId": "019dd95a-0682-776c-8e38-74fe250440b6", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Solution & Approach", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-problem-complication", "evidence": "Deploy-Reshape-Invent framework + 6 success factors stated upfront.", "position": 2, "confidence": 78, "parentBeatName": "Complication", "parentBeatSlug": "complication" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5d-63894b9937cd", "docSlug": "0523405c73c7b809", "documentTitle": "2025 Rise with RISE Upskill Today for a Digital First Tomorrow", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.777, "pageNumber": 8, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_options", "notes": null, "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Help learner narrow from 3 courses + 2 pathways to one fit", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5d-63894b9937cd/8", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5d-63894b9937cd", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5d-63894b9937cd#slide-8", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 9, "from": 8, "name": "Elimination", "slug": "07-elimination", "bestFor": "Decision justification, recommendation defense, skeptical stakeholders", "matchId": "019dd95a-088b-72c8-b7e0-a5617c4e334b", "evidence": "Courses Overview comparison table -> Pick a pathway", "position": 2, "objective": "Help learner narrow from 3 courses + 2 pathways to one fit", "structure": "The Options -> Why Not A -> Why Not B -> Why C is the Answer", "confidence": 70, "description": "Systematically rule out alternatives to arrive at the only viable conclusion" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 40, "from": 8, "beatId": "019dd95a-0701-77fe-ae97-eae1fe94ddac", "arcName": "AIDA", "arcSlug": "aida", "beatName": "Desire", "beatSlug": "aida-desire", "evidence": "Course comparison, BDA deep dive, curriculum, trainers, certificate, fees", "position": 3, "confidence": 80, "parentBeatName": "Evidence", "parentBeatSlug": "evidence" }, { "to": 30, "from": 6, "beatId": "019dd95a-0701-77fe-ae97-f9642f6216fc", "arcName": "Monroe's Motivated Sequence", "arcSlug": "monroes-sequence", "beatName": "Satisfaction", "beatSlug": "monroes-sequence-satisfaction", "evidence": "Programme overview, curriculum modules, capstone", "position": 3, "confidence": 55, "parentBeatName": "Turn", "parentBeatSlug": "turn" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5d-63894b9937cd", "docSlug": "0523405c73c7b809", "documentTitle": "2025 Rise with RISE Upskill Today for a Digital First Tomorrow", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.777, "pageNumber": 9, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_options", "notes": null, "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Help learner narrow from 3 courses + 2 pathways to one fit", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5d-63894b9937cd/9", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5d-63894b9937cd", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5e88-73ef-bd5d-63894b9937cd#slide-9", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 9, "from": 8, "name": "Elimination", "slug": "07-elimination", "bestFor": "Decision justification, recommendation defense, skeptical stakeholders", "matchId": "019dd95a-088b-72c8-b7e0-a5617c4e334b", "evidence": "Courses Overview comparison table -> Pick a pathway", "position": 2, "objective": "Help learner narrow from 3 courses + 2 pathways to one fit", "structure": "The Options -> Why Not A -> Why Not B -> Why C is the Answer", "confidence": 70, "description": "Systematically rule out alternatives to arrive at the only viable conclusion" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 40, "from": 8, "beatId": "019dd95a-0701-77fe-ae97-eae1fe94ddac", "arcName": "AIDA", "arcSlug": "aida", "beatName": "Desire", "beatSlug": "aida-desire", "evidence": "Course comparison, BDA deep dive, curriculum, trainers, certificate, fees", "position": 3, "confidence": 80, "parentBeatName": "Evidence", "parentBeatSlug": "evidence" }, { "to": 30, "from": 6, "beatId": "019dd95a-0701-77fe-ae97-f9642f6216fc", "arcName": "Monroe's Motivated Sequence", "arcSlug": "monroes-sequence", "beatName": "Satisfaction", "beatSlug": "monroes-sequence-satisfaction", "evidence": "Programme overview, curriculum modules, capstone", "position": 3, "confidence": 55, "parentBeatName": "Turn", "parentBeatSlug": "turn" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555", "docSlug": "ee507dc260892073", "documentTitle": "Budgetanalyse af Forsvaret 2017", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.445, "pageNumber": 140, "slideType": "appendix_data", "function": "summarize", "notes": "The slide lists specific operational efficiency proposals that were deemed unfeasible due to lack of revenue, time constraints, or mutual exclusivity.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Justify which proposals were dropped and why", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555/140", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555#slide-140", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 144, "from": 140, "name": "Elimination", "slug": "07-elimination", "bestFor": "Decision justification, recommendation defense, skeptical stakeholders", "matchId": "019dd95a-088b-72c8-b7e2-37262b5ac5e5", "evidence": "Five-part 'Udgåede effektiviseringsforslag' list explaining why 28 proposals were closed.", "position": 21, "objective": "Justify which proposals were dropped and why", "structure": "The Options -> Why Not A -> Why Not B -> Why C is the Answer", "confidence": 80, "description": "Systematically rule out alternatives to arrive at the only viable conclusion" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555", "docSlug": "ee507dc260892073", "documentTitle": "Budgetanalyse af Forsvaret 2017", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.445, "pageNumber": 141, "slideType": "appendix_data", "function": "summarize", "notes": "The slide is part of a series (II/V) documenting discarded efficiency measures for the Danish Armed Forces.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Justify which proposals were dropped and why", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555/141", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555#slide-141", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 144, "from": 140, "name": "Elimination", "slug": "07-elimination", "bestFor": "Decision justification, recommendation defense, skeptical stakeholders", "matchId": "019dd95a-088b-72c8-b7e2-37262b5ac5e5", "evidence": "Five-part 'Udgåede effektiviseringsforslag' list explaining why 28 proposals were closed.", "position": 21, "objective": "Justify which proposals were dropped and why", "structure": "The Options -> Why Not A -> Why Not B -> Why C is the Answer", "confidence": 80, "description": "Systematically rule out alternatives to arrive at the only viable conclusion" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555", "docSlug": "ee507dc260892073", "documentTitle": "Budgetanalyse af Forsvaret 2017", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.445, "pageNumber": 142, "slideType": "appendix_data", "function": "summarize", "notes": "The slide is part of a series (III/V) documenting discarded efficiency measures.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Justify which proposals were dropped and why", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555/142", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555#slide-142", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 144, "from": 140, "name": "Elimination", "slug": "07-elimination", "bestFor": "Decision justification, recommendation defense, skeptical stakeholders", "matchId": "019dd95a-088b-72c8-b7e2-37262b5ac5e5", "evidence": "Five-part 'Udgåede effektiviseringsforslag' list explaining why 28 proposals were closed.", "position": 21, "objective": "Justify which proposals were dropped and why", "structure": "The Options -> Why Not A -> Why Not B -> Why C is the Answer", "confidence": 80, "description": "Systematically rule out alternatives to arrive at the only viable conclusion" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555", "docSlug": "ee507dc260892073", "documentTitle": "Budgetanalyse af Forsvaret 2017", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.445, "pageNumber": 143, "slideType": "appendix_data", "function": "summarize", "notes": "The slide lists specific organizational proposals (e.g., Frederiksberg Slot, Army training consolidation, Arctic Command) and explains why they were dropped (usually because they were already covered by other reorganization plans or deemed unfeasible).", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Justify which proposals were dropped and why", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555/143", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555#slide-143", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 144, "from": 140, "name": "Elimination", "slug": "07-elimination", "bestFor": "Decision justification, recommendation defense, skeptical stakeholders", "matchId": "019dd95a-088b-72c8-b7e2-37262b5ac5e5", "evidence": "Five-part 'Udgåede effektiviseringsforslag' list explaining why 28 proposals were closed.", "position": 21, "objective": "Justify which proposals were dropped and why", "structure": "The Options -> Why Not A -> Why Not B -> Why C is the Answer", "confidence": 80, "description": "Systematically rule out alternatives to arrive at the only viable conclusion" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555", "docSlug": "ee507dc260892073", "documentTitle": "Budgetanalyse af Forsvaret 2017", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.445, "pageNumber": 144, "slideType": "appendix_data", "function": "summarize", "notes": "The slide lists two specific areas where efficiency proposals were considered but ultimately discarded.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Justify which proposals were dropped and why", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555/144", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e11cabfae555#slide-144", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 144, "from": 140, "name": "Elimination", "slug": "07-elimination", "bestFor": "Decision justification, recommendation defense, skeptical stakeholders", "matchId": "019dd95a-088b-72c8-b7e2-37262b5ac5e5", "evidence": "Five-part 'Udgåede effektiviseringsforslag' list explaining why 28 proposals were closed.", "position": 21, "objective": "Justify which proposals were dropped and why", "structure": "The Options -> Why Not A -> Why Not B -> Why C is the Answer", "confidence": 80, "description": "Systematically rule out alternatives to arrive at the only viable conclusion" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b63a-600ee98008c1", "docSlug": "7b4b56ddadbdec17", "documentTitle": "e-mobility in India", "authorId": "PwC", "authorName": "PwC", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 26, "slideType": "market_landscape", "function": "present_framework", "notes": "The slide uses a custom matrix layout to map vehicle models. It includes a legend for launch status and a footnote for the definition of 'Premium'.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Three OEM ways to play, with the innovator approach validated", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b63a-600ee98008c1/26", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b63a-600ee98008c1", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b63a-600ee98008c1#slide-26", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 29, "from": 26, "name": "Elimination", "slug": "07-elimination", "bestFor": "Decision justification, recommendation defense, skeptical stakeholders", "matchId": "019de9aa-ab51-73ec-a37a-849aff7893ac", "evidence": "Launch landscape -> 3 strategies (Platform/Design/Innovator) -> innovator examples -> collaboration", "position": 5, "objective": "Three OEM ways to play, with the innovator approach validated", "structure": "The Options -> Why Not A -> Why Not B -> Why C is the Answer", "confidence": 70, "description": "Systematically rule out alternatives to arrive at the only viable conclusion" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 31, "from": 26, "beatId": "019de9aa-a9cd-73a1-89a4-cbd936cefabf", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Evidence & Proof", "beatSlug": null, "evidence": "EV launch landscape, 3 ways to play, OEM case studies, HV architecture detail", "position": 4, "confidence": 80, "parentBeatName": null, "parentBeatSlug": null }, { "to": 31, "from": 15, "beatId": "019de9aa-aa69-7478-bb4b-015e20bb9d91", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Implications (So What)", "beatSlug": null, "evidence": "Adoption levers and OEM strategy implications", "position": 2, "confidence": 55, "parentBeatName": null, "parentBeatSlug": null } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b63a-600ee98008c1", "docSlug": "7b4b56ddadbdec17", "documentTitle": "e-mobility in India", "authorId": "PwC", "authorName": "PwC", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 27, "slideType": "strategic_options", "function": "compare_options", "notes": "The slide uses a 2x2 matrix structure to categorize strategies, though one quadrant is empty (-NA-).", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Three OEM ways to play, with the innovator approach validated", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b63a-600ee98008c1/27", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b63a-600ee98008c1", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b63a-600ee98008c1#slide-27", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 29, "from": 26, "name": "Elimination", "slug": "07-elimination", "bestFor": "Decision justification, recommendation defense, skeptical stakeholders", "matchId": "019de9aa-ab51-73ec-a37a-849aff7893ac", "evidence": "Launch landscape -> 3 strategies (Platform/Design/Innovator) -> innovator examples -> collaboration", "position": 5, "objective": "Three OEM ways to play, with the innovator approach validated", "structure": "The Options -> Why Not A -> Why Not B -> Why C is the Answer", "confidence": 70, "description": "Systematically rule out alternatives to arrive at the only viable conclusion" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 31, "from": 26, "beatId": "019de9aa-a9cd-73a1-89a4-cbd936cefabf", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Evidence & Proof", "beatSlug": null, "evidence": "EV launch landscape, 3 ways to play, OEM case studies, HV architecture detail", "position": 4, "confidence": 80, "parentBeatName": null, "parentBeatSlug": null }, { "to": 31, "from": 15, "beatId": "019de9aa-aa69-7478-bb4b-015e20bb9d91", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Implications (So What)", "beatSlug": null, "evidence": "Adoption levers and OEM strategy implications", "position": 2, "confidence": 55, "parentBeatName": null, "parentBeatSlug": null } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b63a-600ee98008c1", "docSlug": "7b4b56ddadbdec17", "documentTitle": "e-mobility in India", "authorId": "PwC", "authorName": "PwC", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 28, "slideType": "market_landscape", "function": "illustrate_case", "notes": "The slide uses a 'non-exhaustive' disclaimer. It highlights the 'innovator' play in EV development.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Three OEM ways to play, with the innovator approach validated", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b63a-600ee98008c1/28", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b63a-600ee98008c1", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b63a-600ee98008c1#slide-28", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 29, "from": 26, "name": "Elimination", "slug": "07-elimination", "bestFor": "Decision justification, recommendation defense, skeptical stakeholders", "matchId": "019de9aa-ab51-73ec-a37a-849aff7893ac", "evidence": "Launch landscape -> 3 strategies (Platform/Design/Innovator) -> innovator examples -> collaboration", "position": 5, "objective": "Three OEM ways to play, with the innovator approach validated", "structure": "The Options -> Why Not A -> Why Not B -> Why C is the Answer", "confidence": 70, "description": "Systematically rule out alternatives to arrive at the only viable conclusion" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 31, "from": 26, "beatId": "019de9aa-a9cd-73a1-89a4-cbd936cefabf", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Evidence & Proof", "beatSlug": null, "evidence": "EV launch landscape, 3 ways to play, OEM case studies, HV architecture detail", "position": 4, "confidence": 80, "parentBeatName": null, "parentBeatSlug": null }, { "to": 31, "from": 15, "beatId": "019de9aa-aa69-7478-bb4b-015e20bb9d91", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Implications (So What)", "beatSlug": null, "evidence": "Adoption levers and OEM strategy implications", "position": 2, "confidence": 55, "parentBeatName": null, "parentBeatSlug": null } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b63a-600ee98008c1", "docSlug": "7b4b56ddadbdec17", "documentTitle": "e-mobility in India", "authorId": "PwC", "authorName": "PwC", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 29, "slideType": "client_example", "function": "illustrate_case", "notes": "The slide uses a two-column layout: one for technical requirements and one for industry partnership examples.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Three OEM ways to play, with the innovator approach validated", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b63a-600ee98008c1/29", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b63a-600ee98008c1", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b63a-600ee98008c1#slide-29", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 29, "from": 26, "name": "Elimination", "slug": "07-elimination", "bestFor": "Decision justification, recommendation defense, skeptical stakeholders", "matchId": "019de9aa-ab51-73ec-a37a-849aff7893ac", "evidence": "Launch landscape -> 3 strategies (Platform/Design/Innovator) -> innovator examples -> collaboration", "position": 5, "objective": "Three OEM ways to play, with the innovator approach validated", "structure": "The Options -> Why Not A -> Why Not B -> Why C is the Answer", "confidence": 70, "description": "Systematically rule out alternatives to arrive at the only viable conclusion" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 31, "from": 26, "beatId": "019de9aa-a9cd-73a1-89a4-cbd936cefabf", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Evidence & Proof", "beatSlug": null, "evidence": "EV launch landscape, 3 ways to play, OEM case studies, HV architecture detail", "position": 4, "confidence": 80, "parentBeatName": null, "parentBeatSlug": null }, { "to": 31, "from": 15, "beatId": "019de9aa-aa69-7478-bb4b-015e20bb9d91", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Implications (So What)", "beatSlug": null, "evidence": "Adoption levers and OEM strategy implications", "position": 2, "confidence": 55, "parentBeatName": null, "parentBeatSlug": null } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5de0-76bd-a169-587aba502de4", "docSlug": "2529e86cc1cf2d8d", "documentTitle": "Green Hydrogen: An assessment of near-term power matching requirements", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "IRENA", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "portrait", "aspectRatio": 0.707, "pageNumber": 26, "slideType": "key_messages", "function": "present_framework", "notes": "The slide uses a 'P2' icon to denote the pillar. It includes two photos illustrating hydrogen infrastructure.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Establish priority hierarchy of hydrogen applications", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a169-587aba502de4/26", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a169-587aba502de4", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a169-587aba502de4#slide-26", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 28, "from": 26, "name": "Elimination", "slug": "07-elimination", "bestFor": "Decision justification, recommendation defense, skeptical stakeholders", "matchId": "019dd95a-088b-72c8-b7e4-7573dd6a8c13", "evidence": "Pillar 2 argues hydrogen is not a substitute for fossil fuels and identifies highest-value applications", "position": 6, "objective": "Establish priority hierarchy of hydrogen applications", "structure": "The Options -> Why Not A -> Why Not B -> Why C is the Answer", "confidence": 60, "description": "Systematically rule out alternatives to arrive at the only viable conclusion" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 33, "from": 18, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87dc-d0d5f67f3f51", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Solution & Approach", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-solution-approach", "evidence": "Chapter 2 lays out the four policy pillars (national strategies, priorities, GO, governance)", "position": 3, "confidence": 88, "parentBeatName": "Turn", "parentBeatSlug": "turn" }, { "to": 47, "from": 18, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87dc-e769c7e0b5af", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Action (Now What)", "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-action-now-what", "evidence": "Pillars and sectoral policies prescribe action", "position": 3, "confidence": 60, "parentBeatName": "Resolution", "parentBeatSlug": "resolution" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5de0-76bd-a169-587aba502de4", "docSlug": "2529e86cc1cf2d8d", "documentTitle": "Green Hydrogen: An assessment of near-term power matching requirements", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "IRENA", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "portrait", "aspectRatio": 0.707, "pageNumber": 27, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "present_framework", "notes": "The slide uses a matrix to map sectors against technology solutions, highlighting green hydrogen's specific role.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Establish priority hierarchy of hydrogen applications", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a169-587aba502de4/27", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a169-587aba502de4", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a169-587aba502de4#slide-27", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 28, "from": 26, "name": "Elimination", "slug": "07-elimination", "bestFor": "Decision justification, recommendation defense, skeptical stakeholders", "matchId": "019dd95a-088b-72c8-b7e4-7573dd6a8c13", "evidence": "Pillar 2 argues hydrogen is not a substitute for fossil fuels and identifies highest-value applications", "position": 6, "objective": "Establish priority hierarchy of hydrogen applications", "structure": "The Options -> Why Not A -> Why Not B -> Why C is the Answer", "confidence": 60, "description": "Systematically rule out alternatives to arrive at the only viable conclusion" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 33, "from": 18, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87dc-d0d5f67f3f51", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Solution & Approach", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-solution-approach", "evidence": "Chapter 2 lays out the four policy pillars (national strategies, priorities, GO, governance)", "position": 3, "confidence": 88, "parentBeatName": "Turn", "parentBeatSlug": "turn" }, { "to": 47, "from": 18, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87dc-e769c7e0b5af", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Action (Now What)", "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-action-now-what", "evidence": "Pillars and sectoral policies prescribe action", "position": 3, "confidence": 60, "parentBeatName": "Resolution", "parentBeatSlug": "resolution" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5de0-76bd-a169-587aba502de4", "docSlug": "2529e86cc1cf2d8d", "documentTitle": "Green Hydrogen: An assessment of near-term power matching requirements", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "IRENA", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "portrait", "aspectRatio": 0.707, "pageNumber": 28, "slideType": "section_divider", "function": "summarize", "notes": "Page 28 of a report, part of Chapter Two, focusing on policy priorities (P2) and the principle of additionality.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Establish priority hierarchy of hydrogen applications", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a169-587aba502de4/28", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a169-587aba502de4", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5de0-76bd-a169-587aba502de4#slide-28", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 28, "from": 26, "name": "Elimination", "slug": "07-elimination", "bestFor": "Decision justification, recommendation defense, skeptical stakeholders", "matchId": "019dd95a-088b-72c8-b7e4-7573dd6a8c13", "evidence": "Pillar 2 argues hydrogen is not a substitute for fossil fuels and identifies highest-value applications", "position": 6, "objective": "Establish priority hierarchy of hydrogen applications", "structure": "The Options -> Why Not A -> Why Not B -> Why C is the Answer", "confidence": 60, "description": "Systematically rule out alternatives to arrive at the only viable conclusion" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 33, "from": 18, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87dc-d0d5f67f3f51", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Solution & Approach", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-solution-approach", "evidence": "Chapter 2 lays out the four policy pillars (national strategies, priorities, GO, governance)", "position": 3, "confidence": 88, "parentBeatName": "Turn", "parentBeatSlug": "turn" }, { "to": 47, "from": 18, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87dc-e769c7e0b5af", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Action (Now What)", "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-action-now-what", "evidence": "Pillars and sectoral policies prescribe action", "position": 3, "confidence": 60, "parentBeatName": "Resolution", "parentBeatSlug": "resolution" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5e87-7479-8208-42ba8bd47dcb", "docSlug": "3c6ee13a413bd6b6", "documentTitle": "Ipsos Love Life Satisfaction 2025", "authorId": "IPSOS", "authorName": "Ipsos", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "industry_analyst", "sourceTypeLabel": "Industry analyst", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 7, "slideType": "key_takeaways", "function": "analyze_data", "notes": "The slide uses a scatter plot to demonstrate a correlation between two variables across different countries.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Eliminate irrelevant factors", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5e87-7479-8208-42ba8bd47dcb/7", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5e87-7479-8208-42ba8bd47dcb", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5e87-7479-8208-42ba8bd47dcb#slide-7", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 7, "from": 3, "name": "Voice Of Customer", "slug": "51-voice-of-customer", "bestFor": "Product strategy, customer experience, market research", "matchId": "e885f1a0-b3a8-4c9c-9570-4d51df77150e", "evidence": "The data tables present customer insights.", "position": 0, "objective": "Understand satisfaction with various aspects of life", "structure": "What Customers Say (Verbatim) -> The Pattern Across Voices -> The Insight -> The Response", "confidence": 0.7, "description": "Let customer quotes and feedback drive the narrative and validate the insight" }, { "to": 9, "from": 7, "name": "Elimination", "slug": "07-elimination", "bestFor": "Decision justification, recommendation defense, skeptical stakeholders", "matchId": "364c8d49-7175-44b8-a5ba-2838cad41592", "evidence": "The key takeaways highlight correlations and eliminate irrelevant factors.", "position": 1, "objective": "Eliminate irrelevant factors", "structure": "The Options -> Why Not A -> Why Not B -> Why C is the Answer", "confidence": 0.6, "description": "Systematically rule out alternatives to arrive at the only viable conclusion" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 7, "from": 3, "beatId": "d1e1d376-d8ef-471a-8e7a-45172769c110", "arcName": "The Sparkline", "arcSlug": "sparkline", "beatName": "What Is", "beatSlug": "sparkline-what-is-3", "evidence": "The data tables present detailed information on various aspects of life satisfaction.", "position": 1, "confidence": 0.8, "parentBeatName": "Complication", "parentBeatSlug": "complication" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5e87-7479-8208-42ba8bd47dcb", "docSlug": "3c6ee13a413bd6b6", "documentTitle": "Ipsos Love Life Satisfaction 2025", "authorId": "IPSOS", "authorName": "Ipsos", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "industry_analyst", "sourceTypeLabel": "Industry analyst", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 8, "slideType": "data_table", "function": "analyze_data", "notes": "Data from Ipsos Love Life Satisfaction 2025 survey.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Eliminate irrelevant factors", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5e87-7479-8208-42ba8bd47dcb/8", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5e87-7479-8208-42ba8bd47dcb", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5e87-7479-8208-42ba8bd47dcb#slide-8", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 9, "from": 7, "name": "Elimination", "slug": "07-elimination", "bestFor": "Decision justification, recommendation defense, skeptical stakeholders", "matchId": "364c8d49-7175-44b8-a5ba-2838cad41592", "evidence": "The key takeaways highlight correlations and eliminate irrelevant factors.", "position": 1, "objective": "Eliminate irrelevant factors", "structure": "The Options -> Why Not A -> Why Not B -> Why C is the Answer", "confidence": 0.6, "description": "Systematically rule out alternatives to arrive at the only viable conclusion" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 9, "from": 8, "beatId": "bb91fa34-d9ad-4873-b8f2-fcd7124a2b76", "arcName": "The Sparkline", "arcSlug": "sparkline", "beatName": "New Bliss", "beatSlug": "sparkline-new-bliss", "evidence": "The key takeaways highlight correlations and insights.", "position": 2, "confidence": 0.8, "parentBeatName": "Resolution", "parentBeatSlug": "resolution" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5e87-7479-8208-42ba8bd47dcb", "docSlug": "3c6ee13a413bd6b6", "documentTitle": "Ipsos Love Life Satisfaction 2025", "authorId": "IPSOS", "authorName": "Ipsos", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "industry_analyst", "sourceTypeLabel": "Industry analyst", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 9, "slideType": "key_takeaways", "function": "summarize", "notes": "Data from Ipsos Love Life Satisfaction 2025 study.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Eliminate irrelevant factors", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5e87-7479-8208-42ba8bd47dcb/9", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5e87-7479-8208-42ba8bd47dcb", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5e87-7479-8208-42ba8bd47dcb#slide-9", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 9, "from": 7, "name": "Elimination", "slug": "07-elimination", "bestFor": "Decision justification, recommendation defense, skeptical stakeholders", "matchId": "364c8d49-7175-44b8-a5ba-2838cad41592", "evidence": "The key takeaways highlight correlations and eliminate irrelevant factors.", "position": 1, "objective": "Eliminate irrelevant factors", "structure": "The Options -> Why Not A -> Why Not B -> Why C is the Answer", "confidence": 0.6, "description": "Systematically rule out alternatives to arrive at the only viable conclusion" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 9, "from": 8, "beatId": "bb91fa34-d9ad-4873-b8f2-fcd7124a2b76", "arcName": "The Sparkline", "arcSlug": "sparkline", "beatName": "New Bliss", "beatSlug": "sparkline-new-bliss", "evidence": "The key takeaways highlight correlations and insights.", "position": 2, "confidence": 0.8, "parentBeatName": "Resolution", "parentBeatSlug": "resolution" } ], "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": 55, "slideType": "strategic_options", "function": "present_framework", "notes": "The slide uses a column-based comparison framework to categorize municipal animal services governance.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Compare governance structures and rule out alternatives", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-d42adb9ada21/55", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-d42adb9ada21", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-d42adb9ada21#slide-55", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 56, "from": 55, "name": "Elimination", "slug": "07-elimination", "bestFor": "Decision justification, recommendation defense, skeptical stakeholders", "matchId": "019dd95a-088b-72c8-b7e5-3ea776979b78", "evidence": "'multiple governance structures' + pros/cons table to justify chosen structure", "position": 11, "objective": "Compare governance structures and rule out alternatives", "structure": "The Options -> Why Not A -> Why Not B -> Why C is the Answer", "confidence": 82, "description": "Systematically rule out alternatives to arrive at the only viable conclusion" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 142, "from": 45, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87dd-9f808a4e90ee", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Evidence & Proof", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-evidence-proof", "evidence": "Deep-dive recommendations, full report exhibits, peer benchmarks, S/N math", "position": 4, "confidence": 92, "parentBeatName": "Evidence", "parentBeatSlug": "evidence" } ], "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": 56, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_options", "notes": "The slide uses a matrix format to contrast organizational models, highlighting trade-offs with checkmarks and crosses.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Compare governance structures and rule out alternatives", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-d42adb9ada21/56", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-d42adb9ada21", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-d42adb9ada21#slide-56", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 56, "from": 55, "name": "Elimination", "slug": "07-elimination", "bestFor": "Decision justification, recommendation defense, skeptical stakeholders", "matchId": "019dd95a-088b-72c8-b7e5-3ea776979b78", "evidence": "'multiple governance structures' + pros/cons table to justify chosen structure", "position": 11, "objective": "Compare governance structures and rule out alternatives", "structure": "The Options -> Why Not A -> Why Not B -> Why C is the Answer", "confidence": 82, "description": "Systematically rule out alternatives to arrive at the only viable conclusion" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 142, "from": 45, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87dd-9f808a4e90ee", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Evidence & Proof", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-evidence-proof", "evidence": "Deep-dive recommendations, full report exhibits, peer benchmarks, S/N math", "position": 4, "confidence": 92, "parentBeatName": "Evidence", "parentBeatSlug": "evidence" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-622b-71dc-a6dc-c345cf30d551", "docSlug": "3cd136a54f75", "documentTitle": "Norfolk Southern Corporation (NSC)", "authorId": "21_Ancora", "authorName": "Frederick D. DiSanto", "documentKindSlug": "shareholder-letter", "documentKindLabel": "Shareholder letter", "sourceTypeSlug": "activist_investor", "sourceTypeLabel": "Activist investor", "presentationDate": "2024-03-26 00:00:00", "orientation": "portrait", "aspectRatio": 0.77272725, "pageNumber": 11, "slideType": "preempt_rebuttal", "function": "preempt_rebuttal", "notes": "This is a classic activist investor 'myth-busting' slide.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "to preempt rebuttals", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-622b-71dc-a6dc-c345cf30d551/11", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-622b-71dc-a6dc-c345cf30d551", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-622b-71dc-a6dc-c345cf30d551#slide-11", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 13, "from": 11, "name": "Elimination", "slug": "07-elimination", "bestFor": "Decision justification, recommendation defense, skeptical stakeholders", "matchId": "95dd5722-b367-422e-84bb-a7a991557d91", "evidence": "The document tries to eliminate potential rebuttals by addressing them upfront.", "position": 1, "objective": "to preempt rebuttals", "structure": "The Options -> Why Not A -> Why Not B -> Why C is the Answer", "confidence": 0.7, "description": "Systematically rule out alternatives to arrive at the only viable conclusion" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 14, "from": 6, "beatId": "0cf64b9e-e88f-4927-9b15-3195e21ec92a", "arcName": "Monroe's Motivated Sequence", "arcSlug": "monroes-sequence", "beatName": "Need", "beatSlug": "monroes-sequence-need", "evidence": "The rest of the pages are about exposing contradictions, preempting rebuttals, and providing key messages and a roadmap.", "position": 1, "confidence": 0.8, "parentBeatName": "Complication", "parentBeatSlug": "complication" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-622b-71dc-a6dc-c345cf30d551", "docSlug": "3cd136a54f75", "documentTitle": "Norfolk Southern Corporation (NSC)", "authorId": "21_Ancora", "authorName": "Frederick D. DiSanto", "documentKindSlug": "shareholder-letter", "documentKindLabel": "Shareholder letter", "sourceTypeSlug": "activist_investor", "sourceTypeLabel": "Activist investor", "presentationDate": "2024-03-26 00:00:00", "orientation": "portrait", "aspectRatio": 0.77272725, "pageNumber": 12, "slideType": "preempt_rebuttal", "function": "preempt_rebuttal", "notes": "Uses a 'Claim vs Counter Point' structure to systematically dismantle opposition arguments.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "to preempt rebuttals", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-622b-71dc-a6dc-c345cf30d551/12", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-622b-71dc-a6dc-c345cf30d551", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-622b-71dc-a6dc-c345cf30d551#slide-12", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 13, "from": 11, "name": "Elimination", "slug": "07-elimination", "bestFor": "Decision justification, recommendation defense, skeptical stakeholders", "matchId": "95dd5722-b367-422e-84bb-a7a991557d91", "evidence": "The document tries to eliminate potential rebuttals by addressing them upfront.", "position": 1, "objective": "to preempt rebuttals", "structure": "The Options -> Why Not A -> Why Not B -> Why C is the Answer", "confidence": 0.7, "description": "Systematically rule out alternatives to arrive at the only viable conclusion" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 14, "from": 6, "beatId": "0cf64b9e-e88f-4927-9b15-3195e21ec92a", "arcName": "Monroe's Motivated Sequence", "arcSlug": "monroes-sequence", "beatName": "Need", "beatSlug": "monroes-sequence-need", "evidence": "The rest of the pages are about exposing contradictions, preempting rebuttals, and providing key messages and a roadmap.", "position": 1, "confidence": 0.8, "parentBeatName": "Complication", "parentBeatSlug": "complication" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-622b-71dc-a6dc-c345cf30d551", "docSlug": "3cd136a54f75", "documentTitle": "Norfolk Southern Corporation (NSC)", "authorId": "21_Ancora", "authorName": "Frederick D. DiSanto", "documentKindSlug": "shareholder-letter", "documentKindLabel": "Shareholder letter", "sourceTypeSlug": "activist_investor", "sourceTypeLabel": "Activist investor", "presentationDate": "2024-03-26 00:00:00", "orientation": "portrait", "aspectRatio": 0.77272725, "pageNumber": 13, "slideType": "preempt_rebuttal", "function": "preempt_rebuttal", "notes": "This is a classic 'Claim vs. Counter-Point' rebuttal slide used in proxy contests.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "to preempt rebuttals", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-622b-71dc-a6dc-c345cf30d551/13", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-622b-71dc-a6dc-c345cf30d551", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-622b-71dc-a6dc-c345cf30d551#slide-13", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 13, "from": 11, "name": "Elimination", "slug": "07-elimination", "bestFor": "Decision justification, recommendation defense, skeptical stakeholders", "matchId": "95dd5722-b367-422e-84bb-a7a991557d91", "evidence": "The document tries to eliminate potential rebuttals by addressing them upfront.", "position": 1, "objective": "to preempt rebuttals", "structure": "The Options -> Why Not A -> Why Not B -> Why C is the Answer", "confidence": 0.7, "description": "Systematically rule out alternatives to arrive at the only viable conclusion" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 14, "from": 6, "beatId": "0cf64b9e-e88f-4927-9b15-3195e21ec92a", "arcName": "Monroe's Motivated Sequence", "arcSlug": "monroes-sequence", "beatName": "Need", "beatSlug": "monroes-sequence-need", "evidence": "The rest of the pages are about exposing contradictions, preempting rebuttals, and providing key messages and a roadmap.", "position": 1, "confidence": 0.8, "parentBeatName": "Complication", "parentBeatSlug": "complication" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true } ] }