Executive Authority Outreach

1. Principle

Do not send the full audit as a cold message. Compress it.

2. Finding selection gate

An outreach finding must be:

• tied to the executive's current public business remit;
• compliant with the claim-type evidence-use matrix in 03-evidence-provenance-standard.md—normally current E3+ for an official fact, or a reproducible reviewed public-corpus calculation with explicit sample wording;
• non-sensitive and appropriate to disclose;
• recent enough to matter;
• explainable in one or two sentences;
• connected to the offered service by a mechanism;
• useful even if the recipient never buys;
• free of allegations and psychological claims;
• accompanied by a permission-based next step.

Security details, credential exposure, private contact details, family information, health, protected traits, and personal vulnerabilities are never authority hooks.

3. Role-to-angle routing

Do not claim to know the executive's “decision-making style” unless using direct, relevant public statements, and even then describe stated priorities rather than personality.

4. Subject line grammar

{Specific public asset or metric} + {bounded gap/question}
{Company} + {one quantified public pattern}
{Competitor/topic SOV gap} + {time window}
{Small diagnostic} for {named business outcome}
Question about {public initiative}

Examples:

• A 12-month topic gap around [customer problem]
• [Company]'s response pattern across three review sources
• A break-even check for the [public workflow]
• One measurement gap in the [campaign/launch] journey

Avoid fake replies, deceptive urgency, personal surveillance cues, and unsupported loss numbers.

5. Three-paragraph authority-first pitch

Hi [First Name]—I reviewed [specific public business scope] across [window/source class].
One pattern stood out: [O: narrow observable fact]. [Optional public source link.]

That does not prove [internal diagnosis], but it is consistent with [I: bounded mechanism].
Using [clearly labeled inputs], the break-even threshold is [scenario], not a claim about your actual performance.

I mapped a [small diagnostic/reversible test] that would confirm or reject the mechanism in [time/evidence window].
Would it be useful if I sent the one-page evidence map? If not, I will leave it there.

6. Service-specific pitch blocks

PR and brand growth

I found [topic] appears in [sample definition], while the company response or owned explanation is [observed state].
The opportunity is not simply more coverage; it is to own [decision-relevant narrative] with [proof asset/spokesperson/source].

Workflow automation

The public journey suggests [handoff/repetition/queue] at [step]. I cannot see internal labor or error rates.
A process sample using volume, handling time, and rework would establish whether automation creates cash savings or only capacity.

Cloud/technical architecture

Public evidence shows [non-sensitive architecture/performance fact]. It does not establish vulnerability or internal design quality.
A read-only architecture/performance review could test whether [reliability/cost/delivery] is affected.

Performance marketing

Current public creatives emphasize [message], while high-intent demand clusters around [different job/question].
The smallest test is [creative/landing-page/measurement experiment] with [primary metric and guardrail].

Managed security

Do not use an unverified exposure as a sales scare tactic. If a material signal exists, route a minimal private notice to the published security contact. A commercial follow-up occurs only after responsible handling and must remain separate from pressure.

7. Follow-up sequence

Subject to consent and jurisdiction:

1. initial finding and permission CTA;
2. one follow-up adding a useful artifact or resolving an obvious limitation;
3. final close-the-loop note with an easy opt-out;
4. stop and suppress unless the recipient engages or another lawful basis/trigger exists.

More research does not justify more unwanted messages.

8. Discovery meeting agenda

1. Confirm context: priorities, scope, definitions, and what the public evidence misses.
2. Review evidence: three source-to-claim chains and contradictions.
3. Validate economics: replace assumptions with target inputs; reconcile units and overlap.
4. Compare alternatives: C0–C4 options, including do-nothing and measurement-first.
5. Agree next evidence: owner, reversible test, metric, guardrail, time window, stop rule.

9. Objection handling

10. One-page authority brief

Title: One public signal, one economic mechanism, one test

Context
Observation [O] + source/time
What it may mean [I] + alternatives
What is unknown [U]
Low/base/high or break-even scenario [C][SCENARIO]
Small reversible test
Success metric + guardrail + stop rule
Why the offered service fits

11. Send checklist

• recipient identity and current role verified;
• business email is published/verified or outreach channel is otherwise lawful;
• no sensitive personal or security material;
• official facts are current E3+, and any calculated corpus observation passes the evidence-use matrix on send date;
• inferences labeled;
• dollar figures are scenario/break-even, not accusation;
• accurate sender identity, subject, address, and required disclosure;
• unsubscribe/objection/suppression mechanism works;
• no duplicate or prior opt-out;
• human approval recorded.

---

14-executive-authority-outreach.md · 164 lines · 7658 bytes · SHA-256 7146b315c223ebe1