From question to evidence
The findings memo: every claim wired to a number, every number wired to a source, uncertainty stated like a professional — the artifact that survives hostile review.
Analysis that lives in your head, a chat log, and six spreadsheet tabs is not yet work product. The bridge between analysis and influence is the findings memo — one or two pages with a specific internal contract: every claim carries a number, every number carries a source, and confidence is stated explicitly. This is the document your recommendation stands on when someone senior pushes back — and someone senior always pushes back.
The structure (steal it)
- The question and the definition. One sentence each. 'Why did refund cost rise ~40% QoQ? Refund cost = refunded order value as % of completed order value, by refund month (definition approved by COO, June 30).'
- The finding. The cause, localized: which segment, since when, how big. Numbers inline, not 'significantly' or 'sharply' — 'Gear web refunds rose from ~10% to ~27% of Gear web revenue between March and June; all other category-channel cells moved less than 1.5 points.'
- The evidence chain. The 3-4 cuts that support it, each one line + source: metric by category (source: June orders extract, tab 2), reason mix in the suspect segment, the trend-break date, the counter-segment check. A reader should be able to re-derive your finding from this section alone.
- What it isn't. The alternative explanations you tested and killed, each with the cut that killed it. This section converts skeptics faster than the finding does — it shows you attacked your own answer before they could.
- Confidence and gaps. What you're sure of, what's probable, what you couldn't check ('fragile-flag audit pending — catalog access requested'). Stated limits raise credibility; discovered limits destroy it.
Here is my findings memo draft. Review it as a hostile CFO: (1) flag every claim that lacks a number or a source; (2) flag every place I've stated an inference as a fact; (3) list the three hardest questions you'd ask in the meeting, and check whether the memo already answers them. Do not soften anything - I need the attack, not encouragement.
AI as red-team reviewer is the highest-value use in this whole module. It will find the unsourced claim you stopped seeing four drafts ago.
Keep one running 'numbers log' per investigation: every statistic that might be quoted, its exact value, the file/tab/filter it came from, and the date pulled. Thirty seconds per entry. When the COO asks 'where does the 19% come from?' three weeks later, you answer in one breath — and that answer, delivered instantly, is worth more to your reputation than the analysis itself. (Teams with a governed metrics layer get this for free — certified definitions with owners. Until then, the log is your layer.)