report-and-proposal-craft

name	report-and-proposal-craft
description	Use when choosing and drafting a long-form business report, proposal, business plan, bid response, or white paper whose evidence, persuasion structure, and reader decision must be explicit; use business-writing for short emails, memos, blogs, or web copy.
metadata	{"portable":true,"compatible_with":["claude-code","codex"]}

Report & Proposal Craft

Single entry skill for the engine's long-form business persuasion artifacts. For shorter forms (email, memo, blog, web copy), load business-writing instead.

Long-form reports and proposals must persuade by reasoning, not by arrangement. Before drafting findings, conclusions, recommendations, options, risks, or objections, run critical-reasoning-and-argument so the evidence-to-claim chain, countercase, and certainty level are explicit.

When a report or proposal describes a system, process, workflow, operating model, requirements set, interface, data architecture, or design system, also load systems-process-requirements before drafting the body.

Artifact router

Artifact	Reference	Distinguishing feature
Informational report	references/clippinger-business-reports.md	No conclusions; just the facts
Analytical report	references/clippinger-business-reports.md · references/forsyth-reports-proposals.md	Interprets data; conclusions but no required action
Recommendation report	references/forsyth-reports-proposals.md · references/clippinger-business-reports.md	Numbered, owned, dated, costed recommendations
Progress / status report	references/clippinger-business-reports.md · references/forsyth-reports-proposals.md § status	RAG status; variances; next-period plan
Feasibility report	references/clippinger-business-reports.md	Criteria-based go / no-go
Audit / compliance report	references/clippinger-business-reports.md	Findings ranked by severity; remediation plan
Formal research report	references/clippinger-business-reports.md (full template)	Methodology section; replicability standard
Business plan	references/clippinger-business-reports.md § business plan	Market analysis + financial projections + sensitivity
Growth strategy report	../../extracted-books/growth-profit-disruption-research-notes.txt · references/forsyth-reports-proposals.md	Growth engine + constraints + experiments + KPI tree
Internal proposal / business case	references/forsyth-reports-proposals.md § internal proposal	Recommendation upfront; options considered
Formal external proposal	references/forsyth-reports-proposals.md § external proposal	Cover letter + situation + approach + price + risks
Bid response (RFP)	references/forsyth-reports-proposals.md § bid	Mirror RFP order; compliance matrix as section 1
White paper — backgrounder	references/graham-white-papers.md § backgrounder	Late-funnel; vendor named throughout
White paper — numbered list	references/graham-white-papers.md § numbered list	Early-funnel; light, scannable
White paper — problem/solution	references/graham-white-papers.md § problem/solution	Mid-funnel; vendor only in About + CTA

Hard rule: pick the artifact type before drafting. Mixing types (e.g., audit body with recommendation framing, or backgrounder body with numbered-list opener) confuses readers and weakens both functions.

The persuasion spine (universal)

Every artifact in this skill rides the same four-move spine (Forsyth's SCQA, Minto-style):

• S — Situation — stable, agreed background.
• C — Complication — change, threat, or opportunity that destabilises it.
• Q — Question — implicit reader question ("So what do we do?").
• A — Answer — recommendation, with the supporting pyramid below it.

Building the case: state answer first → 3–5 MECE reasons → evidence per reason → action.

Prerequisites (run before drafting any artifact)

1. Audience grid (Forsyth)

Role	Cares about	Decision power	What they must see	Likely objection
Decider	ROI, risk, reputation	Approves / kills	Bottom line + risk envelope on p.1	"Too expensive / risky"
Influencer	Operational fit	Shapes view	Practicality of approach	"Won't work here"
Blocker	Cost, controls	Veto	Pricing logic, payment terms	"Numbers don't add up"
User	Day-to-day impact	Adoption	Transition plan	"Disrupts my team"
Gatekeeper	Compliance, format	Stops document reaching decider	Required headings, format	"Wrong template"

2. Purpose statement (Forsyth)

After reading this [report/proposal/white paper], [primary reader] will [decide / approve / fund / change / understand] X, because the document shows Y, and the next action they will take is Z by [date].

If X/Y/Z is vague, planning is incomplete. Do not draft.

3. Critical reasoning gate

Load critical-reasoning-and-argument before drafting the body. Each finding, conclusion, recommendation, and option must have an argument map, strongest objection, implementation constraint, and confidence limit.

4. White-paper mantra (Graham)

For any white paper, the mantra test gates every section:

"A truly effective white paper helps business people understand an issue, solve a problem, or make a decision."

If a section does none of those three, it is brochure or filler.

Three-way discipline (Clippinger) — applies to every report

Artifact	What it answers	Voice
Finding	What the data shows	Descriptive, neutral
Conclusion	What the finding means against the question	Interpretive, no new evidence
Recommendation	What to do about it	Imperative, owned, dated, costed

Mixing them — a "finding" that recommends action, or a "conclusion" that introduces new data — is the most common formal-report failure.

Reference index

Reference	Source	Load when
references/forsyth-reports-proposals.md	Patrick Forsyth, How to Write Reports and Proposals (Kogan Page)	Any report or proposal — audience grid, X/Y/Z purpose, exec-summary stand-alone, SCQA, recommendation discipline, ship gate, 7 reusable templates
references/clippinger-business-reports.md	Dorinda Clippinger, Business Report Guides: Research Reports and Business Plans	Formal research reports and business plans — full section templates, replicability standard, three-way discipline, front/back matter rules
references/graham-white-papers.md	Gordon Graham, White Papers For Dummies	Any of the three white-paper flavors — flavor-picking, mantra, hook rules, evidence hierarchy, vendor-naming rules

Executive summary discipline

For any report >10 pages, the executive summary stands alone. Stand-alone test: delete the rest of the document mentally; can the decider still decide correctly? If no, the summary is wrong.

• Length: 1 page max (250–400 words). 2-page exception only for >50-page reports.
• Structure: context · core finding/proposition · 3–5 evidence headlines · ask/recommendation.
• No new material; everything in the summary appears expanded in the body.
• Write it last; placeholder first to constrain scope.

Universal anti-patterns

• Data-dump report — every fact gathered, no synthesis.
• Buried lead — recommendation on page 14.
• Kitchen-sink proposal — every capability listed, none mapped to the buyer's specific need.
• Frankenpaper — three white-paper flavors mashed without discipline.
• Weak recommendations — "consider," "explore" with no owner, date, or cost.
• Methodology hand-waving — "we surveyed the market" without instrument, sample, dates.
• Mixing findings, conclusions, recommendations — the three-way discipline lapse.
• Selling too hard in a white paper — vendor name in title, product mention before page 3.
• Naked claims — "studies show" without footnote.
• Five CTAs in a white paper instead of one.
• Tone whiplash — neutral body, sudden marketing voice in conclusion.
• Plagiarised boilerplate — prior client/competitor name still in the file.
• No risk section in a proposal — sophisticated buyers read this as naïveté.
• Inconsistent numbering — body £2.4m, summary £2.6m.
• Late-stage scope creep — author keeps adding sections; document loses spine.
• Format tax failure — wrong template; fails procurement before reaching decider.
• Stale stats (>3 years) without flag in white papers.
• Pie-chart abuse — 3-D, exploded, percentages not summing.
• Strawmanned alternatives in problem/solution white papers.
• No ask / no CTA — document ends without telling the reader what to do next.

Universal ship gate

• Artifact type identified; structure matches.
• Audience grid filled (decider, influencer, blocker, user, gatekeeper).
• Purpose statement (X/Y/Z) written and met.
• critical-reasoning-and-argument run on findings, conclusions, recommendations, options, risks, and objections.
• systems-process-requirements run where the artifact describes systems, processes, workflows, scope, interfaces, data, requirements, or design systems.
• Lead on page 1 — recommendation/proposition not buried.
• Three-way discipline observed: findings, conclusions, recommendations strictly separated.
• Recommendations specific, owned, dated, costed, ranked.
• Executive summary stands alone — passes "if they only read this" test.
• Every claim sourced; numbers reconcile across summary, body, appendices.
• Every visual has takeaway-sentence title, source line, prose anchor.
• Headings descriptive, parallel, ≤3 levels.
• Known objections surfaced and rebutted (proposal) or limitations stated (report).
• Tone consistent: person, voice, terminology, number formatting.
• Risks/assumptions section present and honest (proposal).
• Pricing validity period and acceptance mechanism present (proposal).
• If white paper: flavor labeled; mantra passes; vendor named no earlier than the flavor allows; single CTA.
• If formal research report: methodology replicable.
• If business plan: sensitivity analysis on financials.
• If growth strategy: growth engine, profit lever, experiment plan, dashboard owner, and retention logic are explicit.

Companion skills

• business-writing — short-form prose (email, memo, blog, web).
• critical-reasoning-and-argument — mandatory for every analytical finding, conclusion, recommendation, option, objection, risk, and implementation implication.
• systems-process-requirements — for system/process descriptions, requirements sets, scope, workflows, interfaces, data architecture, and design-system documentation.
• academic-writing — papers, essays, theses, dissertations.
• data-quality-assessment — score the data behind report findings.
• dataset-discovery-and-analysis — for evidence-driven reports.

Use When

• The artifact is a long-form report, business plan, proposal, bid response, or white paper with a defined reader decision.

Do Not Use When

• Use business-writing for short correspondence and academic-writing for examiner-facing scholarship.

Inputs

Input	Source/provider	If absent
Brief, audience, decision, and required format	Requester or procurement pack	Stop before drafting and record the missing decision or format.
Findings and claim-level sources	Verified research corpus	Mark evidence gaps; never manufacture supporting facts.

Workflow

1. Classify the artifact and stop if the format or decision is unknown.
2. Build the audience grid, purpose statement, and evidence-to-claim map.
3. Choose the matching reference; separate findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
4. Draft, reconcile numbers and citations, test objections, then run the ship gate.
5. If evidence fails, recover by removing or qualifying the claim and return to research.

Outputs

Artifact	Consumer	Acceptance condition
Decision-ready report or proposal	Named reader or evaluator	Format matches the selected type; claims are traceable; ask, risks, and next action are explicit.

Evidence Produced

Category	Artifact	Acceptance condition
Correctness	Claim-source and number-reconciliation record	Every material claim and repeated figure resolves to the same verified source/value.

Capability Contract

Planning and review default to read-only. Draft or edit only with artifact authority; submission, signature, pricing commitment, publication, or client contact requires separate explicit authority.

Degraded Mode

If sources, required templates, rendering, or approval data are unavailable, return the outline, verified sections, and a named gap list. Do not present an unrendered, unverified, or unsigned artifact as final.

Decision Rules

Choice	Action	Failure/risk avoided
Artifact type uncertain	Stop and resolve the reader decision and mandated structure	Hybrid document that satisfies no evaluator
Evidence contradicts the recommendation	Surface the countercase and revise	Persuasion that outruns evidence
Procurement format supplied	Mirror its order and build a compliance check	Administrative rejection

Worked Example

Given an external proposal and an RFP, select the bid-response route, map every mandatory item before drafting, and return a compliance matrix plus the proposal; do not substitute a generic sales document.

Anti-Patterns

• Mixing artifact types. Fix: select one governing structure.
• Burying the decision. Fix: state the answer early.
• Merging finding and recommendation. Fix: separate the reasoning stages.
• Using untraceable evidence. Fix: remove or verify the claim.
• Submitting without format review. Fix: run the compliance gate.

Quality Standards

The artifact matches one selected form, separates evidence from interpretation and action, reconciles material figures, and gives the named reader an explicit decision path.

References

• Forsyth reports and proposals
• Clippinger business reports
• Graham white papers