---

slug: pyramid-principle view: skill audience: llm

Pyramid Principle — operational reference

One sentence. Lead with the answer; group three to five MECE supports beneath it; recurse one level down. Top-down, not chronological.

Decision tree

Is there a single recommendation/answer to communicate?
├── No → Pyramid is the wrong tool. Use a problem-tree, hypothesis-tree, or exploratory deck.
└── Yes
    ├── Can you write the answer as one declarative sentence with a verb?
    │   ├── No → Analysis isn't done; finish the work before structuring the deck.
    │   └── Yes → That sentence is your top of pyramid. Continue.
    ├── Group the supports
    │   ├── 3–5 supports? (1 = no proof; 6+ = leak)
    │   ├── MECE? (no overlap; covers the universe)
    │   └── Same kind? (all causes, or all consequences, or all dimensions — never mixed)
    └── Order the supports
        ├── Inductive? (3 evidence points sharing a cause) → "For three reasons:"
        └── Deductive? (premise → premise → therefore) → "Therefore:"

Recipe (60-minute structuring session)

1. Write the question the deck answers, in one sentence. (10 min)
2. Write the answer, in one declarative sentence with a verb. (10 min)
3. Brainstorm supports. List 8–12 reasons, then collapse to 3–5 MECE groups. (15 min)
4. Order the groups. Pick deductive or inductive — once, for the whole pyramid. (5 min)
5. Sub-pyramid each support. Three to five sub-supports per group. (15 min)
6. Write the SCQA opening: Situation, Complication, Question, Answer. (5 min)

Anti-patterns to refuse

• The fake pyramid — title-slide answer not actually defended by the supports. Reject.
• Non-MECE supports — overlap or gaps. Force the test: what does each support NOT include?
• "Strategic options for growth"-style top — that's a topic, not an answer. Rewrite until it has a verb.
• Phase 1 / Phase 2 / Phase 3 — that's a timeline, not a pyramid. Don't confuse temporal with logical hierarchy.
• Tacit logic — never make the reader guess if you're inductive or deductive. Signal it: "For three reasons:" or "Therefore:".
• Chronological deck — what we did, what we found, what we conclude is the consultant's instinct and the reader's nightmare. Invert.

When NOT to use it

• Discovery / problem-definition decks (no answer yet).
• Narrative-driven communication (keynote, pitch with reveal).
• Workshops where the deck is a discussion artefact, not a recommendation.

Output checklist

A pyramid is shippable when:

• Slide 1 title is a declarative sentence with a verb.
• Three to five supports under it, each is also a declarative sentence.
• Supports are MECE — provable by stating exclusion.
• All supports are the same kind of idea (causes / consequences / dimensions).
• Inductive vs deductive is signalled in the prose.
• SCQA opening lands the reader at the apex in two paragraphs.
• Every sub-slide ladders up.

Canonical signals (for matchers)

• Keywords: pyramid, top-down, MECE, mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive, governing thought, key takeaway, recommendation, Minto.
• Component kinds: title (action-title style), callout (the apex), list (the supports).
• Slide-level shape: a title slide that is one declarative sentence + 3–5 supporting bullets/sub-titles, where the title summarises the bullets.

References

Minto, The Pyramid Principle, 1973 (rev. 2009) — the canonical text. McKinsey internal style guide — operational application. Zelazny, Say It with Charts — visual companion.