Narrative foundations (from the Storymakers methodology)

This skill focuses on the adversarial genre — activist campaigns, short theses, contrarian memos. But every adversarial argument rests on a foundation of general narrative craft. This file distills the parts of the Storymakers methodology that are load-bearing for contrarian work.

If the user wants deeper narrative coaching across non-adversarial formats (keynotes, brand storytelling, internal change comms), the storymakers skill should be invoked alongside this one.

The Big Idea formula

Before any deck, a single sentence must exist — the "Big Idea" the reader should be able to repeat to a colleague tomorrow.

Big Idea = [Your Point of View] + [What's at Stake] Must be under 20 words. Must be memorable. Must be actionable.

Before/After test: you should be able to articulate:

• Before — what the audience believes/does now
• After — what you want them to believe/do after

Adversarial applications:

If you can't write the Big Idea in one sentence, you don't have a thesis yet — you have a complaint.

The Pyramid Principle (Minto)

Adversarial decks follow conclusion-first structure ruthlessly:

                   ┌──────────────────┐
                   │    BIG IDEA      │  ← Slide 2 of every top-tier deck
                   └────────┬─────────┘
                  ┌─────────┼─────────┐
            ┌─────┴───┐  ┌──┴───┐  ┌──┴────┐
            │Reason 1 │  │Reason│  │Reason3│  ← Slide 3 (the three reasons)
            │(gap)    │  │2     │  │(reward)│
            └────┬────┘  └──┬───┘  └───┬───┘
           ┌────┴───┐  ┌───┴──┐   ┌───┴────┐
           │Evidence│  │ Ev.  │   │Evidence│  ← Blocks 4-7 (bulk of deck)
           └────────┘  └──────┘   └────────┘

Never build up to the answer. Lead with it. The reader commits to the thesis in the first 10 seconds; the rest is justification they can skim.

Consequence: the three-reasons slide is the most important in the entire deck. It is the Big Idea decomposed into MECE (Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive) pillars. See storytelling/three-reasons.md.

Match the arc to the intent

Different adversarial postures call for different story arcs. Pick one deliberately.

Arcs to avoid in adversarial work:

• Hero's Journey (too marketing-ey; decks should not feel inspirational)
• Golden Circle (too philosophical — "why" is irrelevant when you're demanding action)
• Onion / Layered Exposition (too slow; you need conclusion-first)

The three lenses (self-check while drafting)

When drafting any slide or section, interrogate it from three perspectives. All three must pass.

🏛 The Architect

"Is this logically sound? Could a skeptic dismantle it?"

• Is the peer set defensible?
• Are KPIs sourced and current?
• Does the valuation bridge add up?
• Are assumptions explicitly stated?
• Are counter-arguments pre-empted?

📖 The Storyteller

"Does this carry emotional weight? Is there tension → release?"

• Is there a villain with a face?
• Is there a specific broken promise?
• Is the 'before' painful enough to make 'after' desirable?
• Does the reader feel the stakes?
• Is there a single memorable number (the "$46bn")?

🎨 The Designer

"Is this clear at a glance? What does the eye land on first?"

• Is the slide title the takeaway sentence?
• Is there one visual hierarchy (not three)?
• Are data labels annotated, not just labelled?
• Does the slide pass the "10-second test"?

A great adversarial deck satisfies all three for the six anchor slides: cover, thesis, three reasons, the peer-gap chart, the SoP reveal, the closing ask. The other slides can be merely competent.

Audience calibration

Who is reading this deck? The answer determines temperature, density, language.

The same thesis, rewritten for four audiences, produces four decks. Don't average — pick one primary audience and calibrate end-to-end.

The headline test (every slide)

Every slide title must pass this test:

"If the reader reads only the titles of all slides, in order, do they understand the full argument?"

Bad title: "Revenue by Segment" Good title: "Segment A generates 85% of profits on 20% of revenue."

Bad title: "Peer Comparison" Good title: "CP has the worst operating ratio of any Class I railroad."

Bad title: "Valuation Analysis" Good title: "Separating the real estate unlocks $50/share — 47% upside."

This rule alone separates masterclass decks from merely competent ones.

See also

• storytelling/scqa-framework.md — the 4-beat narrative backbone
• storytelling/three-reasons.md — the pyramid-principle headline version
• storytelling/closing-ask.md — the final call to action
• slides/slide-architecture.md — how all this maps to physical slides
• storymakers skill (separate) — full Storymakers methodology for non-adversarial contexts