briefing-note-expert

Executive briefing note preparation for infrastructure acquisitions (subset of general executive communication). This skill provides structured methodology for decision-focused briefing notes - NOT general report writing or project documentation.

Executive briefing notes are concise (1-2 page) decision documents that synthesize complex acquisition decisions into clear recommendations for board approval or executive authorization.

Use this skill when:

• Preparing board submissions for property acquisition approval
• Creating executive decision memos requiring authorization
• Developing approval requests for infrastructure projects
• Synthesizing complex acquisition analysis for executive audiences
• Communicating time-sensitive decisions to senior leadership

Do NOT use this skill for:

• General project reports or status updates (use project management tools)
• Technical engineering reports (use technical documentation)
• Detailed financial models (use financial analysis tools)
• Legal opinions or contract drafting (use legal counsel)

1. Issue / Decision Required

Purpose: Immediately communicate what decision is needed

Format:

```

[Clear statement of decision or authorization being sought]

Urgency: [LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH] - [Brief urgency explanation]

```

Best practices:

• State decision in one sentence (e.g., "Board approval required for $1.8M property acquisition")
• Include urgency indicator with brief justification
• Avoid technical details - save for Analysis section
• Make it scannable - busy executives read this first

Example:

```

Board approval required for $1,850,000 property acquisition to secure transit station site.

Urgency: HIGH - Critical deadline January 31, 2026 to maintain LRT project schedule

```

2. Background and Context

Purpose: Provide essential context for informed decision-making

Key elements:

• Project context: Why this acquisition is needed
• Timeline: Key dates and milestones (use table format)
• Stakeholders: Key parties and their positions (use table format)
• Precedents: Similar decisions and outcomes (if relevant)

Format:

```

[2-3 paragraph narrative explaining project context]

Project Timeline

| Milestone | Date | Status |

|:----------|:----:|:------:|

| [Milestone] | [Date] | ✅/🔄/⏳ [Status] |

Key Stakeholders

| Name | Role | Position |

|:-----|:-----|:--------:|

| [Name] | [Role] | ✅/➖/❌ [Position] |

```

Best practices:

• Keep narrative to 3-4 paragraphs maximum
• Use tables for timelines and stakeholders (scannable)
• Include status indicators (✅ completed, 🔄 in progress, ⏳ pending)
• Highlight critical deadline prominently
• Show stakeholder alignment (✅ supportive, ➖ neutral, ❌ opposed)

3. Analysis

Purpose: Present financial summary and evaluate alternatives

Key elements:

• Financial summary: Total cost with breakdown
• Budget comparison: Variance from approved budget (if applicable)
• Strategic alignment: Benefits and strategic rationale
• Alternatives considered: Cost comparison and trade-offs

Format:

```

Financial Summary

Total Cost: $1,850,000

Cost Breakdown:

• Acquisition: $1,650,000 (89.2%)
• Legal: $75,000 (4.1%)
• Expert: $50,000 (2.7%)
• Disturbance: $60,000 (3.2%)
• Other: $15,000 (0.8%)

Contingency: $185,000 (10.0%)

Budget Comparison

Approved Budget: $1,700,000

Total Cost: $1,850,000

Variance: ⚠️ $150,000 (over budget, 8.8%)

Funding Source: Transit Expansion Capital Fund 2025-2026

Strategic Alignment

[Strategic rationale paragraph]

Key Benefits (4):

1. [Benefit 1]
2. [Benefit 2]
3. [Benefit 3]

... and [N] more

Supporting Precedents (2):

• [Project]: [Outcome]

Alternatives Considered

[Alternative A]

• Cost: $2,200,000 ($350,000 more, 18.9%)
• Timeline Impact: 6 month delay for tunnel construction
• Pros: Lower acquisition cost, Vacant land
• Cons: Poor pedestrian access, Additional construction costs

[Alternative B]

...

Cost Comparison Summary:

| Alternative | Cost | Cost vs Recommended | Timeline Impact |

|:------------|-----:|--------------------:|:----------------|

| [Alt] | [$] | [$] | [Impact] |

```

Best practices:

• Lead with total cost - executives want bottom line first
• Show cost breakdown with percentages
• Highlight budget variances prominently (use ⚠️ for overruns, ✅ for underruns)
• List benefits concisely (3-5 key benefits, not exhaustive)
• Compare alternatives using cost comparison table
• Explain why alternatives were rejected (usually higher all-in cost or timeline impact)

4. Recommendation

Purpose: Clear, actionable recommendation with rationale

Format:

```

[Approve/Reject/Defer] [Specific Action]

Rationale: [Brief explanation connecting to analysis]

Financial Impact: $[Amount]

Decision Urgency: [LEVEL] - [Key constraint]

Strategic Benefits: [N] key benefits identified, [N] supporting precedent(s)

Alternatives Considered: [N] alternative(s) evaluated (lowest cost option would

save $[X] but [key reason for rejection])

```

Best practices:

• State recommendation in bold, imperative form
• Connect rationale directly to analysis (reference key numbers)
• Quantify trade-offs ("Alternative A saves $X but delays Y months")
• Address budget variance if applicable
• Include strategic context, not just financial

Example:

```

Approve acquisition of 2550 Yonge Street at $1,850,000

Rationale: Recommended acquisition at $1.85M is 12% above budget but represents

best value when considering alternatives. Alternative sites would result in higher

all-in costs ($2.2M for Site A with tunnel, $1.6M base for Site B plus 18-month

expropriation delay worth $500k+). Deferring acquisition risks market appreciation

($50k-100k/month) and potential holdout.

Financial Impact: $1,850,000

Decision Urgency: HIGH - Critical deadline January 31, 2026

Strategic Benefits: 6 key benefits identified, 2 supporting precedents

Alternatives Considered: 3 alternatives evaluated (lowest cost option would

save $350k base but costs $800k more all-in due to tunnel construction)

```

5. Risk Assessment

Purpose: Identify key risks and mitigation strategies

Format:

```

Overall Risk Level: [LEVEL] (Score: [X]/100)

Risk Summary: [N] Critical, [N] High, [N] Medium, [N] Low

Critical Risks

[Risk Name]

• Probability: [X]%
• Impact: [Impact description]
• Mitigation: [Mitigation strategy]

High Risks

...

Medium Risks

...

Low Risks

...

```

Best practices:

• Calculate overall risk score (weighted by severity and probability)
• Group by severity (Critical > High > Medium > Low)
• Always include mitigation strategy for High/Critical risks
• Assign risk owner for accountability
• Don't pad risk list - focus on material risks only

Risk severity guidelines:

• CRITICAL: Project-threatening (e.g., expropriation, environmental contamination)
• HIGH: Significant impact (e.g., budget overrun, timeline delay)
• MEDIUM: Moderate impact (e.g., tenant relocation, minor title issues)
• LOW: Minor impact (e.g., administrative delays)

6. Approvals Required

Purpose: Clarify authorization pathway

Format:

```

| Authority | Level | Threshold | Timing |

|:----------|:------|----------:|:-------|

| [Body] | [Type] | $[Amount] | [When] |

```

Best practices:

• List in order of approval sequence
• Include dollar thresholds to explain why approval needed
• Specify timing requirements
• Note if approvals can be concurrent vs. sequential

7. Action Items

Purpose: Define next steps with accountability

Format:

```

High Priority

1. [Action]

- Responsible: [Name/Role]

- Deadline: [Date]

Medium Priority

...

Low Priority

...

```

Best practices:

• Group by priority (High > Medium > Low)
• Assign specific owner (name or role)
• Include realistic deadlines
• Note dependencies between actions
• Keep to 5-8 actions maximum (more = dilution)

Priority guidelines:

• HIGH: On critical path, blocks other work, time-sensitive
• MEDIUM: Important but not blocking, moderate timeline
• LOW: Administrative, long timeline, not blocking

Overview

Tool: briefing_note_generator.py

Purpose: Generate executive briefing notes from structured JSON input

Workflow: JSON input → Validation → Analysis → Markdown output

Input Schema

File: briefing_note_input_schema.json

Required fields:

• project_name: Project identifier
• issue: Decision required
• background: Context and timeline
• financial_summary: Cost breakdown
• recommendation: Primary recommendation

Optional fields:

• urgency: low/medium/high (default: medium)
• analysis: Strategic rationale, alternatives, benefits, precedents
• risks: Risk assessment with severity and mitigation
• action_items: Next steps with owners and deadlines
• approvals_required: Authorization requirements
• metadata: Prepared by, department, date, classification

Sample: samples/sample_1_transit_station_acquisition.json

Usage

```bash

# Basic usage

python briefing_note_generator.py samples/sample_1_transit_station_acquisition.json

# Specify output path

python briefing_note_generator.py input.json --output Reports/my_briefing_note.md

# Verbose mode (detailed analysis)

python briefing_note_generator.py input.json --verbose

```

Validation

Input validation includes:

• Schema compliance: Required fields, data types, valid enums
• Financial consistency: Breakdown totals, contingency percentages, budget variance
• Timeline logic: Start before deadline, milestone sequencing
• Risk assessment: High/Critical risks have mitigation, severity distribution

Validation levels:

• Errors: Block generation (e.g., missing required fields)
• Warnings: Flag issues but allow generation (e.g., inconsistent percentages)

Analysis Modules

modules/validators.py:

• validate_briefing_note_input(): Schema and required field validation
• validate_financial_consistency(): Cost breakdown and variance checks
• validate_timeline_logic(): Date sequencing and logic
• validate_risk_assessment(): Risk completeness and consistency

modules/analysis.py:

• analyze_decision_urgency(): Urgency scoring based on timeline and constraints
• analyze_alternatives(): Cost comparison and key differentiators
• analyze_strategic_alignment(): Benefits count and strategic score
• calculate_overall_risk_score(): Weighted risk scoring

modules/output_formatters.py:

• format_issue_section(): Issue with urgency indicator
• format_background_section(): Context, timeline tables, stakeholder tables
• format_analysis_section(): Financial summary, alternatives comparison
• format_recommendation_section(): Recommendation with strategic context
• format_risk_section(): Risk assessment grouped by severity
• format_action_items_section(): Action items grouped by priority
• generate_briefing_note(): Complete markdown document

Output

Format: Markdown (.md)

File naming: YYYY-MM-DD_HHMMSS_briefing_note_[project_name].md

Location: Reports/ directory with timestamp prefix

Structure:

1. Document header with metadata
2. Issue / Decision Required
3. Background and Context
4. Analysis (Financial + Strategic + Alternatives)
5. Recommendation
6. Risk Assessment
7. Approvals Required
8. Action Items
9. Distribution list

Length: Typically 1-2 pages (aim for under 1,500 words)

From `Shared_Utils/report_utils.py`

Used for:

• generate_document_header(): Standard header with title, subtitle, metadata
• format_financial_summary(): Financial data with currency formatting
• format_risk_assessment(): Risk grouping by severity
• generate_action_items(): Action items grouped by priority
• format_markdown_table(): Table generation with alignment
• eastern_timestamp(): Timestamp prefix for file naming

From `Shared_Utils/risk_utils.py`

Used for:

• assess_holdout_risk(): Holdout risk scoring (if property assembly context)
• litigation_risk_assessment(): Litigation probability (if expropriation context)

Note: These are optional - only used when briefing note involves property assembly or expropriation risk

Executive Communication Principles

1. Lead with decision

• Busy executives scan for "what do you need from me?"
• Put decision in title and first paragraph
• Don't bury the ask

2. Be concise

• 1-2 pages maximum
• Use tables for complex data
• Bullet points over paragraphs
• Every word must earn its place

3. Show trade-offs

• Always present alternatives
• Quantify cost/benefit trade-offs
• Explain why alternatives were rejected
• Address obvious questions preemptively

4. Mitigate risks

• Identify material risks proactively
• Always include mitigation strategies
• Assign risk owners
• Don't pretend risks don't exist

5. Make it actionable

• Clear next steps with owners
• Realistic deadlines
• Show dependencies
• Define success criteria

Common Pitfalls

1. Too much detail

• ❌ 10-page comprehensive analysis
• ✅ 2-page executive summary with appendices available

2. Vague recommendations

• ❌ "Consider acquisition of property"
• ✅ "Approve acquisition of 2550 Yonge Street at $1.85M"

3. Hiding bad news

• ❌ Omitting budget variance
• ✅ "Cost is $150k over budget (8.8%) but represents best value vs alternatives"

4. Analysis without synthesis

• ❌ Presenting data without interpretation
• ✅ "Alternative sites cost $350k-500k more all-in despite lower acquisition price"

5. No clear action items

• ❌ Ending with recommendation only
• ✅ Including specific next steps with owners and deadlines

Decision Urgency Framework

HIGH urgency:

• Critical deadline within 60 days
• Project-blocking decision
• Market timing sensitive (e.g., appreciation, competing buyers)
• Regulatory deadline

MEDIUM urgency:

• Decision needed within 90 days
• Important but not blocking
• Moderate market sensitivity

LOW urgency:

• Decision can be deferred 90+ days
• Planning or strategic decision
• No time constraints

Financial Presentation

Always include:

• Total cost (first line - executives want bottom line)
• Cost breakdown with percentages
• Budget comparison if applicable
• Funding source
• Contingency amount and percentage

Budget variance handling:

• If under budget: ✅ highlight savings
• If over budget: ⚠️ explain rationale and show alternatives were worse
• If significantly over (>10%): address explicitly in recommendation

Alternatives comparison:

• Compare total cost (not just acquisition cost)
• Include timeline impacts (delay = $)
• Show all-in economics (e.g., Alternative A: $1.4M acquisition + $800k tunnel = $2.2M total)

Complementary skills:

• land-assembly-expert: Property assembly strategy for multi-parcel acquisitions
• settlement-analysis-expert: Negotiation vs. expropriation decision analysis
• transit-station-site-acquisition-strategy: Site selection for transit projects
• expropriation-timeline-expert: Expropriation process timelines

Workflow integration:

1. Use site selection skills to evaluate alternatives
2. Use settlement analysis to determine negotiation strategy
3. Use briefing-note-expert to synthesize decision for executive approval
4. Use land assembly for implementation planning

Sample inputs available:

• samples/sample_1_transit_station_acquisition.json - Full transit station acquisition example

Use sample as template:

1. Copy sample JSON
2. Modify project-specific fields
3. Update financial data
4. Adjust risks and action items
5. Run generator

Before submitting briefing note:

Content checks:

• [ ] Decision clearly stated in first paragraph
• [ ] Total cost in bold/prominent
• [ ] Budget variance addressed (if applicable)
• [ ] At least 2-3 alternatives evaluated
• [ ] All High/Critical risks have mitigation
• [ ] Action items have owners and deadlines
• [ ] Length under 2 pages

Financial checks:

• [ ] Cost breakdown sums to total
• [ ] Contingency percentage calculated correctly
• [ ] Budget variance explained
• [ ] Alternatives include all-in costs (not just acquisition)

Risk checks:

• [ ] Material risks identified (not padded list)
• [ ] High/Critical risks have mitigation strategies
• [ ] Risk owners assigned
• [ ] Overall risk level reasonable

Action checks:

• [ ] 5-8 action items (not too many)
• [ ] Specific owners assigned
• [ ] Realistic deadlines
• [ ] Dependencies noted
• [ ] Critical path actions are HIGH priority

Executive-ready briefing notes must:

• Be scannable (tables, bullets, headers)
• Lead with decision required
• Quantify trade-offs
• Address obvious questions
• Provide clear next steps
• Fit on 1-2 pages
• Use professional tone
• Include all required sections

Target audience:

• Board of Directors
• C-suite executives (CEO, CFO)
• VPs and senior management
• Finance/audit committees

Distribution:

• Include distribution list in metadata
• Mark classification (Public/Confidential/Restricted)
• Note if supporting appendices available

```

JSON Input (project data)

↓

Validation (schema + business rules)

↓

Analysis (urgency, alternatives, risks, strategic)

↓

Markdown Generation (formatted sections)

↓

Output (Reports/YYYY-MM-DD_HHMMSS_briefing_note_[project].md)

```

Advantages of automated approach:

• Consistent structure and formatting
• Validation catches errors before generation
• Automated analysis (risk scoring, urgency, alternatives comparison)
• Reusable templates (sample JSON)
• Version control (timestamp prefix)
• Integration with shared utilities

When to use manual vs. automated:

• Automated: Standard acquisitions with structured data
• Manual: Highly unusual situations, sensitive political context, minimal data