Menu
Translate analysis findings into an actionable insight using three labeled sections (Process, Result, Insight). Use when the user has data but needs a recommendation, when an analysis ends without action, or step 5 of a strategic analysis.
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
Based on SOC occupation classification
Apply the 5 Whys technique to drill from a surface problem to a root cause. Outputs five sequentially numbered "Why?" lines with brief answers, ending in a root-cause statement. Use after an issue tree to drill the critical branch deeper, or any time the user wants to test whether the apparent cause is the actual cause.
Structure a recommendation top-down — Barbara Minto's Pyramid Principle. Outputs a single-sentence top-line answer, three to five supporting arguments, and one layer of evidence under each. Use to convert analysis into executive communication, or to structure a board-meeting talk track.
Tier-1 strategy-consultant analysis using seven frameworks in sequence — MECE, Issue Trees, 5 Whys, Hypothesis-Driven, Pareto, So What?, and Pyramid Principle. Use when the analysis needs both deeper root-cause drilling AND executive-ready communication structure. Heavier than the 5-framework master; reach for it on high-stakes work.
Tier-1 strategy-consultant analysis tailored for edtech / online-learning problems — activation, completion, learning outcomes, monetization. Same five frameworks with edtech-aware MECE defaults, vocabulary, and root-cause priors.
Tier-1 strategy-consultant analysis tailored for fintech / payments / lending / fraud problems — approval rates, fraud loss, delinquency, regulatory friction. Same five frameworks with fintech-aware MECE defaults, vocabulary, and root-cause priors.
Tier-1 strategy-consultant analysis tailored for public-sector / civic-ops problems — backlogs, processing cycle time, citizen satisfaction, procurement. Same five frameworks with government-aware MECE defaults, vocabulary, and root-cause priors.
| name | so-what-test |
| description | Translate analysis findings into an actionable insight using three labeled sections (Process, Result, Insight). Use when the user has data but needs a recommendation, when an analysis ends without action, or step 5 of a strategic analysis. |
Most analyses fail at the last step. People surface findings, lay out data, and stop — leaving the reader to figure out what it means and what to do. The "So What?" test forces you to close the loop: every finding must lead to an action specific enough to assign.
A finding without a "so what" is trivia. A finding with a "so what" is a recommendation.
Three explicitly labeled sections, in this order:
**Process:** [What specific data, workflow, or factor was analyzed.]
**Result:** [The objective outcome — numbers, signals, observations.]
**Insight:** [The underlying reason this matters + the immediate action. Specific enough to assign to a person with a deadline.]
| Default | When to flex |
|---|---|
| Process is one or two clauses | Don't flex — long preamble buries the answer. |
| Result has numbers or specific observations | Don't flex — vague Results undermine the Insight. |
| One Insight per block | If multiple actions are warranted, write multiple So What blocks rather than one Insight with three bullets. |
| Insight names who, what, and by when | Don't flex — that's the test. |
The assignability test: could you copy your Insight into an assignment to a named person with a deadline, and would they know what to do? If not, rewrite it.
Problem: Mid-level engineering attrition has risen for three consecutive quarters. The VP of Engineering wants to know why and what to do.
Process: Looked at attrition data.
Result: Attrition went up.
Insight: We should focus on retention.
(Process is too vague. Result has no number. Insight is unassignable. Three failures.)
Process: Joined exit-interview transcripts (n=24) with promotion-cycle data, comp-band placement, and manager-tenure data for all mid-level engineers (L4–L5) who left between Q2 of last year and Q1 of this year. Compared to a control cohort of L4–L5 engineers who stayed.
Result: 18 of the 24 leavers (75%) cited "no clear path to promotion" as a top-3 reason in their exit interview. Of those 18, 14 had been at level for >24 months — twice the median tenure-at-level (12 months) for the staying cohort. Comp-band placement was median or above for 17 of 18, ruling out pay as a primary driver.
Insight: This is a promotion-velocity problem, not a comp problem. The mid-level leavers we lost most often had been stuck at level for 24+ months — well beyond the band's expected tenure — without a clear path forward. Action: by end of next month, the VPE and Head of People run a calibration review of every L4–L5 engineer at level for >18 months (estimated 31 people); identify which are promotion-ready, which need a stretch project to close gaps, and which are genuinely capped. Communicate outcomes to managers by mid-quarter, then track 6-month retention of the cohort. Owner: VPE, with People partnering. Target: cut mid-level attrition from 18% to below 11% by year-end.
(Process is specific. Result has numbers, comparisons, ruled-out alternatives. Insight is assignable: who, what, by when, what success looks like.)
strategy-consultant — the So What? test is step 5 of 5, where everything lands.Adapted from Analyst Academy on YouTube — 5 Consulting Frameworks to Solve Any Problem. MIT-licensed; see LICENSE.