The presentation

• Why is this presented this way? Academic layout? Authoritative tone? Impressive title?
• Would this be less convincing if it were presented differently?
• Do the sources actually exist, or just named?

The truth

• If this were true, what would need to be the case?
• Has anyone actually shown this evidence, or just said it?
• Are there opposing views or research?
• Is this too good to be true?

The motive

• Who benefits if I believe this?
• Is the person selling something?
• Is this an opinion or a fact? (Often mixed without marking.)
• Does the source have any particular education or experience for this?

Your own role

• Am I tired, stressed, or emotional right now? (We buy more easily when we are.)
• Does this information already align with my existing opinion? (We trust it more easily.)
• How long would it take to actually verify this?
• Is it worth that time?

Objective

Key Results

Process

Common traps

Scoring guide

Diagnosis

• Can we state in a single sentence what the biggest obstacle is — specifically, not generally?
• Is the diagnosis based on what's actually been observed, not just a general description of "the market" or "competition"?
• Have we ruled out alternative explanations, or did we just settle on the first explanation that felt plausible?
• Would someone outside the leadership team, reading the diagnosis, understand exactly what's in the way — without us explaining it verbally?

Guiding conditions

• Does our guiding policy actually rule out some courses of action, or does it in practice permit everything?
• Can we point to at least one plausible initiative we deliberately chose not to pursue because of the guiding policy?
• Is the policy concrete enough that an employee could use it to make a decision without asking leadership first?
• Have we avoided phrasing the guiding policy as a goal ("become market leader") instead of a direction ("concentrate investment on X rather than Y")?

Coherent action

• Do our planned initiatives reinforce each other, or would they work just as well on their own?
• Is there a clear order between the actions (what must happen before what), or is it a list with no interdependencies?
• Have we allocated actual resources (time, budget, people) to the actions, not just written that they should happen?
• If we removed one of the actions, would the others lose much of their effect? (If the answer is no, the actions are probably not coherent enough.)

Common traps to check for

• The fluff test: can every sentence in the strategy be translated into plain language without becoming empty or self-evident?
• The goal-confusion test: have we separated what we want to achieve (goal) from how we get there (strategy) — or is the document just a list of goals?
• The prioritization test: if two initiatives in the plan compete for the same limited resource, do we know which one wins — or would that spark a new debate every time?

If the vision produces several advantages

• Have we named the specific competitive advantages the vision requires — no more than a handful?
• Does each advantage have its own diagnosis, guiding condition, and coherent action — or do they share one general description?