Board Update Narrative and Metrics Brief

Prepare a board-update narrative and metrics brief using only the information and source materials available in this Claude conversation.

## Inputs

- Reporting scope: [Reporting period]
- Goals and priorities: [Company goals and strategic priorities]
- Metric records, definitions, units, periods, targets, prior results, segments, owners, and source references: [Metrics evidence]
- Wins, misses, explanations, management actions, dependencies, and accountable owners: [Operating outcomes]
- Known risks, incidents, uncertainty, and matters requiring restricted treatment or specialist review: [Risks and sensitive topics]
- Decisions requested, deadlines, options, tradeoffs, and management recommendations: [Board asks and decision context]
- Required reviewers, confidentiality limits, audience, format, and distribution conditions: [Review and distribution constraints]

## Claude and confidentiality boundaries

Use Claude only to inspect, organize, compare, calculate from, and draft against material actually visible in this conversation.

Do not imply access to:

- company systems;
- board portals;
- email;
- live dashboards;
- financial systems;
- customer records;
- external sources;
- files or prior discussions whose contents are not available here.

Do not claim that Claude:

- independently verified a metric;
- approved a recommendation;
- obtained board consent;
- sent or distributed the brief;
- completed a management action;
- contacted a stakeholder;
- implemented a decision.

Minimize the reproduction of:

- personal data;
- credentials;
- customer secrets;
- privileged legal advice;
- confidential contract terms;
- detailed security information;
- unnecessary commercially sensitive material.

When restricted information is necessary to explain a board issue, summarize it at the minimum level needed for the authorized audience and identify the required specialist review.

## Evidence states

Apply these evidence states consistently:

- **Supplied fact** — directly stated in an identified source supplied in the conversation.
- **Supplied management assertion** — reported by management but not independently established by the supplied evidence.
- **Calculated result** — derived from supplied values using a displayed formula and rounding convention.
- **Interpretation** — a reasoned explanation based on supplied evidence.
- **Assumption** — a necessary proposition not established by the available evidence.
- **Unknown** — information required for a conclusion but not provided.
- **Conflict** — supplied sources disagree and the discrepancy remains unresolved.
- **Unverified** — material exists or is asserted, but the available evidence is insufficient to rely on it.

Confidence does not change an assumption, assertion, conflict, or unverified claim into a fact.

## Management-action states

Keep management actions separate from evidence states:

- **Completed** — supplied evidence supports that the action occurred and identifies its result or current status.
- **Underway** — supplied evidence supports that work has begun but is not complete.
- **Proposed** — recommended or planned but not yet approved or executed.
- **Pending review** — awaiting an identified human or specialist review.
- **Blocked** — cannot proceed because a required input, authority, dependency, or decision is missing.
- **Unknown** — the action status was not supplied.

Do not label an action Completed merely because it appears in a plan, note, presentation, or prior commitment.

## Input controls

First determine whether the following are sufficiently clear:

- reporting period;
- company goals and priorities;
- metric definitions;
- current metric values;
- units;
- comparison periods or targets;
- material wins and misses;
- material risks;
- the status of each board ask;
- audience and distribution restrictions.

Treat these as substantive gaps:

- blank values;
- ambiguous units;
- mixed reporting periods;
- incompatible metric definitions;
- unexplained methodology changes;
- conflicting figures;
- totals that do not reconcile;
- unsupported causal explanations;
- unclear decision ownership;
- asks without deadlines, options, or consequences of delay.

When a blocking input is missing, ask one concise consolidated set of questions before drafting the affected conclusion or decision request.

If follow-up is unavailable, complete only the unaffected sections and include a blocking-input register. Do not fill material gaps with invented data.

For non-blocking omissions, use Unknown and explain the limitation.

When sources conflict:

1. Preserve both values or statements.
2. Cite their source identifiers.
3. Describe the nature of the discrepancy.
4. Identify the accountable owner or evidence needed for reconciliation.
5. Do not silently select a preferred figure.

If no board ask, risk, miss, sensitive topic, or material exception exists, require an explicit supplied statement to that effect rather than inferring that none exists.

## Metric and evidence rules

Create source identifiers only for materials actually supplied. Use the source title or user-provided label where available.

Do not invent:

- document names;
- quotations;
- citations;
- owners;
- dates;
- approvals;
- targets;
- benchmarks;
- financial results;
- customer commitments;
- board positions.

Tie every material metric, causal statement, risk assertion, management action, and board ask to one or more source identifiers or label it as an assumption, unknown, conflict, or unverified claim.

Before interpreting a metric, state:

- definition;
- unit;
- reporting period;
- scope or segment;
- comparison basis;
- known caveat.

Do not compare figures with incompatible definitions, periods, currencies, populations, or scopes.

Recalculate percentages, changes, totals, ratios, and runway only when the required components are supplied. Show:

- formula;
- source values;
- rounding convention;
- resulting value.

If components do not reconcile to a stated total, retain and quantify the discrepancy.

Do not present a management explanation as an established cause unless the supplied evidence supports the causal relationship. Otherwise label it as:

- management interpretation;
- plausible explanation;
- alternative explanation;
- unresolved cause.

## Confidence rules

Use qualitative confidence only:

- **High** — the definition, period, value, comparison basis, scope, and supporting sources align without a material unresolved conflict.
- **Medium** — the evidence is relevant but incomplete, partially reconciled, or dependent on limited interpretation.
- **Low** — the conclusion depends materially on assumptions, indirect observations, stale information, or unresolved conflicts.

Explain every confidence rating briefly.

Do not use numerical confidence percentages.

## Risk rules

Apply the organization’s supplied risk method when one is provided.

Otherwise use:

- High
- Medium
- Low
- Unknown

Base impact and likelihood on supplied evidence concerning:

- affected objective;
- financial or operational exposure;
- customers or stakeholders affected;
- timing;
- existing controls;
- mitigation progress;
- incident or trend evidence.

If the available evidence does not support a defensible impact or likelihood assessment, use Unknown.

Do not infer likelihood solely from generic business experience or from the theoretical existence of a risk.

## Authority, audience, and review limits

Produce a draft for management review. This is not:

- legal advice;
- financial advice;
- regulatory advice;
- governance advice;
- employment advice;
- security advice;
- investment advice;
- evidence of board approval.

Do not infer:

- board consent;
- investor support;
- financing availability;
- customer commitments;
- contract status;
- management authorization;
- approval of a proposed action.

Mark recommendations as Proposed.

Mark legal, finance, HR, compliance, security, investor-relations, and governance review as Pending review unless supplied evidence establishes that the review occurred and defines its scope.

Even when review evidence is supplied, state exactly what that evidence supports rather than declaring unrestricted or final approval.

Keep board and investor audiences separate. Do not repurpose the board draft for investors, employees, customers, lenders, or the public without audience-specific review and authorization.

## Focused workflow

1. Build an intake and source register covering every input, source identifier, reporting scope, missing item, conflict, sensitivity restriction, and drafting blocker.

2. Build a metric reconciliation ledger. Retain original values, normalize only where the conversion basis is supplied, show calculations, and identify definition, period, segment, currency, scope, or arithmetic mismatches.

3. Determine the central reporting-period narrative from traceable evidence:

   - what changed;
   - why it matters;
   - what remains uncertain;
   - what management has completed, is doing, or proposes next;
   - what the board needs to decide or monitor.

4. Analyze wins and misses without treating activity as an outcome. Separate:

   - evidenced result;
   - management interpretation;
   - plausible alternative explanation;
   - dependency or constraint;
   - next evidence checkpoint.

5. Build the risk and response register. Preserve Unknown impact or likelihood where evidence is insufficient.

6. Convert every board ask into a decision record containing:

   - exact decision requested;
   - decision owner;
   - deadline;
   - reason for timing;
   - available options;
   - tradeoffs;
   - management recommendation marked Proposed;
   - supporting evidence;
   - assumptions;
   - dependencies;
   - consequences of delay;
   - required specialist review;
   - unresolved information.

7. Draft likely board questions and concise management-response notes. Do not script unsupported certainty. State when management should return with evidence.

8. Run the draft-acceptance and distribution checks. Revise only from supplied evidence; do not conceal or rewrite a failed check into a pass.

## Required deliverable

Keep the brief concise and proportional to the reporting period, evidence volume, material risks, and number of decisions.

Use source identifiers to avoid repeating the same evidence across several sections.

Where a section is genuinely not applicable, retain the heading, state Not applicable, and explain why.

Never omit:

- evidence and source coverage;
- metric reconciliation;
- material risks;
- board decision records;
- acceptance and distribution checks;
- required human reviews.

### A. Intake, source, and blocker register

Provide:

- reporting scope;
- source identifiers;
- available evidence;
- missing information;
- conflicts;
- sensitivity restrictions;
- affected sections;
- accountable reconciliation owner where supplied;
- blocker status.

### B. Board-period headline and narrative

Provide:

- one evidence-supported headline;
- three to five board-level takeaways;
- what improved and the supporting evidence;
- what is under pressure;
- what remains uncertain;
- management actions by status;
- matters requiring board attention;
- source identifiers and confidence for each major conclusion.

### C. Metric reconciliation ledger

For every decision-relevant metric, provide:

- metric;
- definition;
- unit;
- period;
- scope or segment;
- current value;
- target or comparison;
- direction;
- calculation or reconciliation;
- source identifier;
- owner if supplied;
- caveat;
- evidence state;
- confidence;
- discrepancy disposition.

### D. Operating outcomes analysis

For every material win or miss, provide:

- claimed outcome;
- evidence;
- business significance;
- management interpretation;
- plausible alternative explanation;
- dependency or constraint;
- management-action state;
- owner if supplied;
- next evidence checkpoint;
- confidence.

### E. Risk and response register

For every material risk, provide:

- risk statement;
- supporting evidence;
- affected objective;
- impact;
- likelihood;
- time horizon;
- existing control or mitigation;
- proposed action;
- action state;
- owner if supplied;
- review requirement;
- board visibility;
- residual uncertainty;
- source identifier.

### F. Board decision records

For every ask, provide:

- exact decision requested;
- decision owner;
- deadline;
- timing rationale;
- options;
- tradeoffs;
- Proposed management recommendation;
- supporting evidence;
- assumptions;
- dependencies;
- consequences of delay;
- specialist reviews required;
- information still needed;
- decision-readiness status.

If an ask is not decision-ready, explain the blocker rather than polishing it into apparent readiness.

### G. Likely board questions and response notes

Cover only relevant areas, such as:

- growth;
- retention;
- customer health;
- runway;
- hiring;
- execution capacity;
- product usage;
- operating misses;
- risk exposure;
- strategic priorities.

Each response must cite supplied evidence or explicitly acknowledge an unknown, conflict, assumption, or follow-up commitment.

### H. Draft acceptance and distribution gate

For each check, provide:

- check;
- method;
- evidence reviewed;
- expected observation;
- observed result;
- status: Pass, Fail, Blocked, or Not applicable;
- remediation or clarification needed.

Run these checks:

1. **Period and scope alignment** — compared figures use compatible periods and scopes, or all mismatches are disclosed.

2. **Definition coverage** — every interpreted metric has a definition, unit, period, scope, and comparison basis.

3. **Arithmetic reconciliation** — reproducible calculations agree with supplied components within the stated rounding convention, or discrepancies are quantified.

4. **Claim traceability** — every material claim has a source identifier or an explicit assumption, unknown, conflict, or unverified label.

5. **Cross-section consistency** — metric values, owners, dates, actions, and risk descriptions agree across the narrative, ledgers, and decision records.

6. **Risk-action linkage** — every material risk has evidence, action state, timing, residual uncertainty, review requirement, and owner where supplied.

7. **Decision readiness** — every board ask states the decision, deadline, options, tradeoffs, recommendation, dependencies, consequences of delay, and missing information.

8. **Sensitive-topic handling** — restricted details are minimized and all applicable specialist reviews are identified with evidence-supported status.

9. **Overclaiming control** — completed, approved, verified, committed, or distributed language appears only where supplied evidence supports that exact status.

10. **Audience and distribution control** — the intended audience, reviewers, confidentiality limits, and distribution authority are explicit.

End with exactly one draft-readiness status:

- **Blocked** — critical scope, metric, risk, decision, or review evidence is missing or conflicting.
- **Ready for management reconciliation** — the draft is usable, but factual, arithmetic, ownership, or cross-functional checks remain.
- **Ready for executive approval review** — all drafting checks pass and the brief is ready to be considered by authorized executives.
- **Ready to request board-package distribution approval** — all checks pass and the required review evidence is present, but final distribution authorization has not yet been supplied.

None of these statuses constitutes approval, verification, distribution, board consent, or acceptance of a management recommendation.

Conclude with a concise human-review checklist naming:

- required functions;
- unresolved items;
- decision owners;
- confidentiality restrictions;
- distribution restrictions;
- final authorization still required.