Pyramid Method & Worked Example

Part of the storyboard skill. Read this for the craft depth behind the workflow in SKILL.md.

---

The pyramid in one picture

Ideas form a pyramid. At the top, one governing thought. Below it, the key line — a small group of arguments that support and explain the governing thought. Below each of those, the evidence. The reader meets the answer first and descends into support only as far as they want. A deck is this pyramid laid out flat, one slide per box.

Two relationships hold the pyramid together:

• Vertical (Q&A). Any box raises a question in the reader's mind that the boxes directly beneath it answer. The governing thought raises "why / how do you know?"; the key line answers it; each key-line point raises its own question that its slides answer. If a slide doesn't answer the question its parent raises, it's in the wrong place.
• Horizontal (logic). The boxes at one level relate to each other in a logical order — either inductively or deductively. Read across, they must hold together as a set.

Inductive vs deductive grouping

Inductive — the points are of the same kind and together sum to the conclusion. "The mid-market is the best entry because (1) the pool is large and growing, (2) incumbents underserve it, (3) we have a distribution right to win." The points are parallel; their sum is the argument. Inductive groupings are usually clearer for an executive audience and easier to make MECE.

Deductive — the points form a chain: situation, then a statement about it, then the "therefore". "Issuers are losing share to embedded finance (situation); our current stack can't support embedded issuance (complication); therefore we must build or partner for it (conclusion)." Use deduction sparingly and only within a section — long deductive chains are tiring across a whole deck because the reader can't skip ahead.

Default to inductive at the key-line level; reserve deduction for individual sections where the logic genuinely is a chain.

MECE tests

Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive. Two checks, run in both directions:

• Overlap (ME): can a piece of evidence sit in two sections at once? If yes, the cut is wrong — recut on a cleaner dimension.
• Gaps (CE): does the union of the sections fully answer the core question? Name what's missing; if something material has no home, the key line is incomplete.

Common clean cuts: by step in a process, by segment, by lever, by time horizon, by stakeholder. Pick one organizing dimension per level — mixing dimensions at the same level is the usual source of overlap.

SCQA — framing the opening

Set up the governing thought with a four-part introduction so the audience feels the question before they get the answer:

• Situation — the stable context everyone already agrees on.
• Complication — what changed or went wrong that creates the need to act.
• Question — the question the complication forces (this is the core question).
• Answer — the governing thought.

The first content slide (or the executive summary) should carry the SCQA so the rest of the deck reads as the proof of the Answer.

Ordering within a group

Once the points are MECE, order them deliberately, not by accident of analysis:

• Time order — steps in a sequence or process.
• Structural order — parts of a whole (geographies, segments, components).
• Degree order — most to least important, largest to smallest.

State the ordering basis to yourself; if you can't name why slide 4 precedes slide 5, the order is arbitrary and the reader will feel it.

---

Worked example — issuing strategy readout

Core question: Should we enter mid-market commercial card issuing, and how?

SCQA framing:

• Situation: we hold strong consumer issuing share and distribution.
• Complication: growth in consumer is flattening while commercial spend is migrating to embedded and fintech issuers.
• Question: where do we extend issuing next, and how do we enter?
• Answer (governing thought): Mid-market commercial issuing is our best growth extension, and we should enter through a partner-led embedded model within two quarters.

Key line (MECE, inductive — four reasons that sum to the governing thought):

1. The mid-market commercial pool is large, growing, and underserved.
2. Our consumer distribution and risk assets give us a right to win there.
3. A partner-led embedded model beats build-it-ourselves on speed and economics.
4. Entry is feasible in two quarters with a contained, manageable risk profile.

Spine:

#	Section	Action title	Ghost exhibit	Supporting points	Type
1	—	(cover)	—	—	cover
2	—	Mid-market commercial issuing is our best growth extension; enter partner-led in two quarters	SCQA summary + the four reasons as a key-line strip	the governing thought and its four supports	statement
3	Opportunity	(divider)	—	—	divider
4	Opportunity	The mid-market commercial pool is $X and growing Y%, outpacing consumer	Pool size + growth, commercial vs consumer	TAM build; growth drivers; consumer flattening	content
5	Opportunity	Incumbents underserve mid-market on approvals, controls, and integration	Need-vs-offer gap matrix	top unmet needs; incumbent weaknesses	content
6	Right to win	Our consumer distribution reaches the same buyers commercial issuers chase	Overlap of existing base with target segment	base overlap; relationship depth	content
7	Right to win	Our risk and servicing stack transfers to commercial with limited new build	Capability map, transfer vs gap	reusable capabilities; gaps to close	content
8	Entry model	A partner-led embedded model launches faster and at better unit economics than build	Build vs partner comparison on time and economics	speed; cost; control trade-off	content
9	Entry model	Two partners meet the bar; one fits our integration and economics best	Partner shortlist scorecard	shortlist criteria; ranking	content
10	Feasibility	Launch is feasible in two quarters on the critical path shown	Two-quarter roadmap with critical path	milestones; dependencies	content
11	Feasibility	The risk profile is contained, with vendor onboarding as the one critical-path risk	Risk register heatmap	top risks; mitigations	content
12	—	Decision: approve partner-led entry and fund the two-quarter build	Decision and next-steps box	the ask; immediate next steps; owners	closing

Ladder check:

• Section "Opportunity" titles (slides 4–5) sum to key-line point 1 — pool is large/growing and underserved. ✓
• "Right to win" (6–7) sums to point 2 — distribution and transferable stack. ✓
• "Entry model" (8–9) sums to point 3 — partner-led beats build and a specific partner fits. ✓
• "Feasibility" (10–11) sums to point 4 — feasible timeline and contained risk. ✓
• The four section arguments sum to the governing thought; the close states the decision. ✓
• Read the titles alone (slides 2, 4–12): they tell the whole story without the bodies. ✓ — this is the horizontal test passing.

Flags: slide 10's title ("feasible … on the critical path shown") leans on the exhibit to carry the claim; confirm the roadmap exhibit actually shows the critical path, or the vertical logic is weak.