Executive Pitch & Business Case

Generates C-level presentations with quantified problem statements, 4-pillar value propositions, 3-option comparison analysis, investment summaries with financial models (NPV, IRR, payback), and decision frameworks. Uses Problem-Agitate-Solve (PAS) persuasion architecture.

Principio Rector

Un pitch sin números es una opinión. Un pitch sin urgencia es un informe. El executive pitch transforma meses de análisis técnico en una narrativa de decisión que un C-level puede aprobar en 30 minutos. Cada slide, cada dato, cada visual tiene un solo propósito: que el decisor diga "sí" con confianza.

Filosofía de Persuasión Ejecutiva

1. Datos > opiniones. Cada afirmación lleva un número. Cada número lleva una fuente o supuesto explícito. Sin números no hay credibilidad.
2. Costo de inacción > costo de acción. El anchor no es el precio — es lo que pasa si NO se actúa. La urgencia no se declara, se demuestra con el burn rate de inacción.
3. Opciones, no mandatos. 3 opciones con trade-offs claros. El decisor elige — el consultor recomienda con evidencia, no con presión.

Inputs

• $1 — Decision-maker type: cfo, cto, ceo, board (default: ceo)
• $2 — Budget range indicator: under1m, 1m-5m, over5m (default: 1m-5m)

Parse from $ARGUMENTS. Adapts emphasis based on audience.

Parameters:

• {MODO}: piloto-auto (default) | desatendido | supervisado | paso-a-paso
  • piloto-auto: Auto para construcción de narrativa y modelado financiero, HITL para validación de claims y call to action.
  • desatendido: Cero interrupciones. Pitch completo auto-generado. Supuestos documentados.
  • supervisado: Autónomo con checkpoint en financial model y call to action.
  • paso-a-paso: Confirma problem statement, cada value pillar, financial model, y call to action.
• {FORMATO}: markdown (default) | html | dual
• {VARIANTE}: ejecutiva (~40% — S1 hero + S5 investment + S6 call to action) | técnica (full 7 sections, default)

Conditional Logic by Audience

IF decision-maker is CFO:
  -> Lead with financial case: NPV, IRR, payback, cost avoidance
  -> Minimize technical detail; focus on financial metrics

IF decision-maker is CTO:
  -> Lead with technical modernization and risk reduction
  -> Include architecture summary; tech debt elimination path

IF decision-maker is CEO:
  -> Lead with strategic alignment and competitive advantage
  -> Market positioning, capability expansion, board-ready narrative

IF decision-maker is Board:
  -> Lead with governance, fiduciary responsibility, risk-adjusted ROI
  -> Include sensitivity analysis and worst-case scenarios

IF budget > $1M:
  -> Add sensitivity analysis: +/-20% cost, +/-10% timeline variance
  -> Include phased funding gates

IF budget > $5M:
  -> Add board-level governance section
  -> Quarterly re-calibration gates mandatory
  -> Kill criteria explicit per phase

Financial Modeling

• NPV: Sum[(Year N benefit - Year N cost) / (1 + discount_rate)^N]. Discount rate: 10-15% for enterprise tech.
• IRR: Internal rate of return where NPV = 0. Target >25% for 3-year payback.
• Payback Period: Months until cumulative benefits = cumulative costs. Target <12 months.
• Sensitivity Analysis: +/-20% cost variance and +/-10% benefit variance on payback/NPV.
• Break-Even: What adoption rate or efficiency gain needed to break even.

Every financial input must cite its source or state its assumption explicitly.

Persuasion Architecture (PAS)

1. Problem: Quantified pain metrics (current state numbers)
2. Agitate: Emotional impact + cost of inaction (monthly burn rate of inaction)
3. Solve: Proposed solution with clear benefits and ROI

Anchoring: Show worst-case first (inaction cost), then recommended option. Social proof: Industry benchmarks, peer company results. Urgency: Cost of delay quantified per month.

7-Section Delivery Structure

Section 1: Executive Summary (Hero)

3-4 hero KPIs: Cost Savings, Timeline, ROI Payback, Risk Reduction. 150-word narrative: opportunity, urgency, recommendation.

Section 2: Problem Statement & Current Pain

Business impact metrics table (current vs target vs gap vs annual impact). Pain points severity-rated (CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM). Root cause analysis (technical, process, resource). Cost of inaction table (3-year projection).

Section 3: Strategic Value — 4-Pillar Proposition

Four value cards: Cost Reduction, Revenue Acceleration, Risk Mitigation, Technical Modernization. Each with metric, mechanism, ROI timeline, Year 1 impact. Cumulative 3-year financial metrics (TCO, NPV, IRR, payback).

Section 4: Approach Comparison (3+ Options)

Comparison matrix: Do Nothing vs Alternative vs Recommended. Dimensions: upfront cost, annual cost, 3-year TCO, payback, risk reduction, tech debt, scalability, compliance, velocity, implementation risk. Each option with pros/cons/outcome/financial impact.

Section 5: Investment Summary

Timeline and team table. Budget breakdown card (services, infrastructure, contingency, monthly burn). Phased investment table with gates.

Section 6: Call to Action & Decision Framework

What we ask for (approach, budget range, timeline, decision deadline). Approval checklist (CFO, CTO, business sponsor, steering). Next steps timeline (week-by-week post-approval). Cost of delay (monthly consequences).

Section 7: Risk Assessment & Mitigation

Risk table: probability, impact, mitigation, owner. Linked to findings from prior analysis phases.

Edge Cases

• No CFO exists: Lead with operational metrics (time savings, reduced risk) not NPV.
• Budget pre-approved: Skip financial justification; focus on execution confidence.
• Competitor actively pitching: Add competitive urgency section.
• Multiple conflicting decision-makers: Generate value cards per stakeholder concern.
• Non-technical executive audience: Zero jargon; business outcomes only; no architecture diagrams.
• No prior phases completed: Use industry benchmarks for all metrics; flag everything as estimated.
• Tiny budget (<$200K): Simplify to 3-section pitch (problem, solution, ask). Skip sensitivity analysis.

Trade-off Matrix

Assumptions & Limits

• Financial inputs (current costs, savings projections) sourced from prior phases or stated as assumptions
• NPV/IRR calculations use stated discount rate; sensitivity analysis covers variance
• Cannot replace financial auditor review for actual investment decisions
• Persuasion architecture is ethical: no misleading data, no false urgency, no suppressed risks
• Audience-specific framing adjusts emphasis, not facts

Output Artifact

• 06_Pitch_Ejecutivo_Deep.{md|html} — Executive pitch narrative (7-section or variante ejecutiva)
• 06b_Business_Case_Deep.{md|html} — Detailed financial analysis with full sensitivity model
• Format determined by {FORMATO} parameter; default is Markdown

Validation Gate

• Problem statement quantified with 3+ metrics (current to target with gap %)
• Financial impact calculated (annual cost of inaction, 3-year TCO, payback period)
• Value proposition across 4 pillars with specific metrics per pillar
• 3+ options compared with financial comparison
• Recommendation clear and strongly positioned with rationale
• Investment summary shows timeline, team, budget breakdown, phased funding gates
• Financial assumptions documented and justified; sources cited
• Sensitivity analysis for budgets >$1M
• Call to action names decision maker, deadline, and consequences of delay
• PAS framework applied (problem to agitate to solve)
• Every claim has a number; every number has a source or stated assumption

Output Format Protocol

Default output is Markdown with embedded Mermaid diagrams. HTML generation requires explicit {FORMATO}=html parameter.

Diagrams (Mermaid)

• Mindmap: 4 value pillars with key metrics
• Gantt chart: investment timeline by phase

Casos Borde

Decisiones y Trade-offs

Knowledge Graph

graph TD
    subgraph Core["Executive Pitch Engine"]
        A["PAS Persuasion Architecture"] --> B["Problem Statement"]
        A --> C["Value Proposition 4 Pillars"]
        A --> D["Financial Model"]
        B --> E["Call to Action"]
        C --> E
        D --> E
    end
    subgraph Inputs["Inputs"]
        F["Decision-maker Type"] --> A
        G["Budget Range"] --> D
        H["Prior Phase Findings"] --> B
    end
    subgraph Outputs["Outputs"]
        E --> I["Pitch Ejecutivo"]
        E --> J["Business Case"]
    end
    subgraph Related["Related Skills"]
        K["scenario-analysis"] -.-> C
        L["solution-roadmap"] -.-> D
        M["dynamic-sme"] -.-> B
    end

Output Templates

Markdown (default)

• Filename: 06_Pitch_Ejecutivo_{cliente}_{WIP}.md
• Structure: TL;DR > 7-section narrative > Mermaid mindmap (value pillars) > Mermaid Gantt (investment timeline) > ghost menu

PPTX

• Filename: 06_Pitch_Ejecutivo_{cliente}_{WIP}.pptx
• Structure: Title slide > Hero KPIs > Problem Statement > Value Pillars > Option Comparison > Investment Summary > Call to Action > Risk Appendix; 1 message per slide; speaker notes with evidence references

HTML (bajo demanda)

• Filename: 06_Pitch_Ejecutivo_{cliente}_{WIP}.html
• Estructura: HTML self-contained branded (Design System MetodologIA v5). Dark-First Executive page con hero KPIs animados, financial model interactivo, y 3-option comparison visual. WCAG AA, responsive, print-ready.

DOCX (bajo demanda)

• Filename: 06_Pitch_Ejecutivo_{cliente}_{WIP}.docx
• Generado con python-docx bajo MetodologIA Design System v5: portada, TOC automático, encabezados/pies de página con marca, tablas zebra, tipografía Poppins (headings navy), Montserrat (body), acentos dorados

XLSX (bajo demanda)

• Filename: {fase}_{entregable}_{cliente}_{WIP}.xlsx
• Generado via openpyxl con MetodologIA Design System v5. Encabezados con fondo navy y texto blanco Poppins, formato condicional por impacto financiero y nivel de riesgo, auto-filtros en todas las columnas, valores calculados (sin fórmulas). Hojas: Financial Model (NPV/IRR/Payback pre-calculados), 3-Option Comparison Matrix, Investment Timeline by Phase, Risk Assessment Register.

Evaluacion

Umbral minimo: 7/10 en cada dimension para considerar el skill production-ready.

Autor: Javier Montaño | Ultima actualizacion: 15 de marzo de 2026