# Executive Authority Outreach

## 1. Principle

Immediate authority is earned by showing a relevant public business observation, explaining its bounded economic mechanism, admitting what cannot be known externally, and offering a small useful next step.

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

| Role | Likely business remit | Safe angle examples |
| --- | --- | --- |
| CEO/Founder | category, growth, capital allocation, strategic risk | demand curve, whitespace, narrative, cross-system constraint |
| CMO/Growth | demand, CAC, conversion, brand | message/demand gap, creative fatigue hypothesis, measurement plan |
| Communications/PR | narrative, media, issues, trust | SOV/topic ownership, response gap, evidence-backed story asset |
| CTO/CIO | reliability, architecture, delivery, cost | public performance/architecture signal with diagnostic—not vulnerability theater |
| COO | throughput, cost, quality, capacity | manual bottleneck hypothesis and break-even diagnostic |
| CFO | contribution, cash, risk, capital efficiency | transparent scenario, sensitivity, payback threshold |
| CRO/Sales | pipeline, win rate, expansion | proof/offer friction, segment/intent alignment, sales enablement gap |
| Chief Customer Officer | activation, support, retention | recurring public themes, response loop, measurement plan |

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

```text
{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

```text
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

```text
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

```text
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

```text
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

```text
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

```text
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

| Objection | Evidence-safe response |
| --- | --- |
| “That number is wrong.” | “It is a scenario from public/benchmark inputs, not your reported loss. Which input should be replaced first?” |
| “You do not know our internal process.” | “Correct. I separated observation from inference; the proposed diagnostic is designed to test the mechanism.” |
| “Competitor X is not comparable.” | “Let’s change the comparison contract and rerun the normalized dimensions.” |
| “This feels intrusive.” | “I used only public business evidence, but relevance matters more than availability. I will remove the record and stop contact.” |
| “We already solved this.” | “That is useful disconfirming evidence. The public signal may be stale; I will retract or update the finding.” |

## 10. One-page authority brief

```text
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.