Deliver a Strategy Presentation with Expert Q&A

Proof required

Submit your situation analysis document. It must name the specific organisation, state the strategic question in one sentence, and include an external-environment scan (at minimum: two macro forces and two competitive forces) and an internal capability assessment (at least two strengths and two constraints). Sources must be cited.

What gets checked

• Strategic question is specific and answerable — not 'how to be more competitive' but 'whether to enter the EU market in 2026'
• External scan uses real data (revenue figures, market share, regulatory changes) not generic observations
• Internal assessment is grounded in verifiable facts about the named organisation, not assumptions

Common mistakes

• Choosing a fictional or hypothetical company — the proof requires a real named organisation with public information
• Situation analysis stays descriptive without identifying a genuine tension or strategic choice

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• You are reviewing a strategy presentation for a specific named organisation. Your role is to challenge the presenter's reasoning, not just assess the slides.
• Before the presentation: read the submitted situation analysis and note two or three areas where the evidence is thin or the logic unclear — these become your Q&A questions.
• During Q&A: ask at least one question the presenter could not have rehearsed (e.g., 'What changes if the competitor they identified pivots to X?'; 'How would you advise differently if the organisation had 30% less capital?'). A prepared answer to a scripted question does not satisfy this milestone — the Q&A must be adversarial.
• The presentation passes if: (a) the strategic question is answered with a clear recommendation, (b) the recommendation is supported by evidence from the situation analysis, and (c) the presenter's live responses to your challenge questions demonstrate genuine strategic reasoning, not memorised content.

Proof required

Submit a strategy document (4–6 pages) containing: (a) your recommendation stated in one paragraph, (b) a comparison table of at least three strategic options with evaluation criteria, (c) a risk register with at least three named risks and mitigation approaches, and (d) an implementation timeline. Document must be about the same organisation as your situation analysis.

What gets checked

• Alternative options are genuine alternatives, not strawmen — each could plausibly be recommended
• Risk register names specific risks (not generic 'execution risk') with quantified or described likelihood and impact
• Implementation timeline assigns real roles or functions, not placeholder 'team' labels

Common mistakes

• Alternative options section is perfunctory — each option gets one sentence and the comparison is not substantive
• Recommendation changes the company's entire strategy when the evidence only supports a more limited conclusion

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Review the strategy document before the live presentation. Check that the options comparison table uses consistent criteria across all options — cherry-picked criteria that favour the chosen option are a red flag.
• The risk register should show that the presenter has thought about what could go wrong, not just what they hope will go right. Ask: 'Which of these risks do you consider most likely to derail this strategy, and what's your early warning signal?'
• A passing document has a defensible recommendation — you may disagree with it, but the reasoning chain from evidence to recommendation should be traceable.

Proof required

Submit: (a) the final slide deck (PDF or link), (b) a recording or confirmed attendance record showing date, location or platform, and names of three or more attendees including the expert verifier, and (c) a Q&A log (minimum 400 words) summarising the three most challenging questions and your responses. The expert verifier must confirm they asked questions that were not shared with you in advance.

What gets checked

• Recording or attendance record confirms at least one named expert attendee who can be contacted to verify their participation and that questions were not pre-shared
• Q&A log records genuine challenges — questions that test the reasoning, not questions designed to confirm the presenter's view
• Presenter's written responses in the Q&A log demonstrate reasoning under pressure, not just restatement of slides

Common mistakes

• Verifier is a peer with no relevant expertise — 'three colleagues' who have not done strategic work do not satisfy the expert requirement
• Q&A log records only favourable exchanges and omits challenges that were not well-answered

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• You are the named expert verifier for this presentation. You must attend in person or via video call — an asynchronous written review does not fulfil this role.
• Before the session: confirm with the submitter that your questions will not be shared in advance. Prepare at least two questions based on your own reading of the strategy document, not questions the presenter suggested.
• Your written confirmation must state: your professional background relevant to assessing this strategy, the date and platform of the presentation, and confirmation that your Q&A questions were not pre-disclosed. Sign or send this confirmation to the submitter by email or message so they can include it as proof.
• The milestone is complete if the presenter demonstrates coherent real-time reasoning when challenged — not if you agree with their recommendation.