Evidence-based Briefing and Influence
Learn to brief decision makers clearly, saying what the evidence shows, what limits it and what you recommend. No coding: you work on the data of Raket Parts, a fictional maker of rocket parts.
You will be able to
- write a finding that claims no more than the evidence shows
- put the limit that matters beside the figure
- lead a brief with the ask
- keep a brief consistent with its appendix
Say only what the evidence shows
Write a finding that answers the manager’s question without claiming more than the evidence shows.
Limits that change the decision
Explain a decision-relevant range, put the important limitation beside it and say what evidence would settle it.
Answer first
Shape an evidence-based decision brief that leads with the ask, keeps limits visible and agrees with its appendix.
Recommendations a reviewer can follow
Write a recommendation that a reviewer can audit later, with its evidence, every option including doing nothing, the criteria, an owner with authority, the assumption it depends on and specific revisit conditions.
Explain it so they can say it back
Explain a technical fault to the owner who must decide, keep its risk in plain words and check with state-back questions that they can say the decision and the risk back.
Defending a recommendation under challenge
Present and answer hard questions without overclaiming.
Communicating unwelcome findings
Deliver results people do not want to hear.
Working through conflict over evidence
Handle disputes about evidence and who is responsible.
Influencing without authority
Move a decision forward when you cannot instruct anyone.
Accountable reporting to a governance body
Final assessment
A full brief and its defence on an unseen case.
Briefing and Influence / Module 1
Say only what the evidence shows
Noor Tjalsma is reviewing a findings summary for Bram Wijnstra. Some lines reflect invoiced sales, while others imply too much. Learn to put each finding, its limit and its possible implication in the right place.
Sections
Briefing and Influence / Module 1 / Free practice
Try it on your own question
Run it in the practice editor
The practice editors have the Raket Parts tables loaded. Type a query or a formula, run it and change it as often as you like. Nothing is marked.
Briefing and Influence / Module 2
Limits that change the decision
Mira Dageraad needs a delivery planning decision. Noor finds that some delivery outcomes are not confirmed, so the reported on-time share has a lower and upper bound. Learn which limits can change a decision and which deserve only a short note.
This module builds on module 1. If you are new to this, start with module 1.
Sections
Briefing and Influence / Module 2 / Free practice
Try it on your own question
Run it in the practice editor
The practice editors have the Raket Parts tables loaded. Type a query or a formula, run it and change it as often as you like. Nothing is marked.
Briefing and Influence / Module 3
Answer first
Noor has a short briefing slot with Teun Veldhorst. The analyst’s draft follows the order of the research, not the decision. Rebuild it into a clear recommendation, bounded evidence, genuine options and a matching appendix.
This module builds on module 2. If you are new to this, start with module 2.
Sections
Briefing and Influence / Module 3 / Free practice
Try it on your own question
Run it in the practice editor
The practice editors have the Raket Parts tables loaded. Type a query or a formula, run it and change it as often as you like. Nothing is marked.
Briefing and Influence / Module 4
Recommendations a reviewer can follow
Teun asks Noor what to do about order history after a recorded legacy failure. A draft gives one answer but no way to reconstruct the choice. Build a recommendation that stands up to later review.
This module builds on module 3. If you are new to this, start with module 3.
Sections
Briefing and Influence / Module 4 / Free practice
Try it on your own question
Run it in the practice editor
The practice editors have the Raket Parts tables loaded. Type a query or a formula, run it and change it as often as you like. Nothing is marked.
Briefing and Influence / Module 5
Explain it so they can say it back
Bram Wijnstra wants to tell the sales team that October 2025 orders are about four times October 2024. Noor Tjalsma knows October 2024 was rebuilt from emails after a database failure. She explains the fault so Bram can decide what to compare, then checks that he can say the risk back.
This module builds on module 4. If you are new to this, start with module 4.
Sections
Briefing and Influence / Module 5 / Free practice
Try it on your own question
Run it in the practice editor
The practice editors have the Raket Parts tables loaded. Type a query or a formula, run it and change it as often as you like. Nothing is marked.
Briefing and Influence / Module 1 / 1.1
1.1 Finding, overreach, implication
Section 1.1 complete
Next: 1.2 The limit beside the claim
Briefing and Influence / Module 1 / 1.2
1.2 The limit beside the claim
Section 1.2 complete
Next: 1.3 Cause claims need care
Briefing and Influence / Module 1 / 1.3
1.3 Cause claims need care
Section 1.3 complete
Next: 1.4 Answer the asked question
Briefing and Influence / Module 1 / 1.4
1.4 Answer the asked question
Section 1.4 complete
Next: Module 1 check
Continue to the module check Recap this section Back to module 1
Briefing and Influence / Module 1 / Check
Module 1 check
Module 1 complete
Next: Module 2, Limits that change the decision
Continue to module 2 Try it on your own question Recap module 1 Back to module 1
Briefing and Influence / Module 2 / 2.1
2.1 Does the range cross the line?
Section 2.1 complete
Next: 2.2 Material and immaterial limits
Briefing and Influence / Module 2 / 2.2
2.2 Material and immaterial limits
Section 2.2 complete
Next: 2.3 What would change the answer
Briefing and Influence / Module 2 / 2.3
2.3 What would change the answer
Section 2.3 complete
Next: 2.4 One planning figure
Briefing and Influence / Module 2 / 2.4
2.4 One planning figure
Section 2.4 complete
Next: Module 2 check
Continue to the module check Recap this section Back to module 2
Briefing and Influence / Module 2 / Check
Module 2 check
Module 2 complete
Next: Module 3, Answer first
Continue to module 3 Try it on your own question Recap module 2 Back to module 2
Briefing and Influence / Module 3 / 3.3
3.3 Cut to fit
Section 3.3 complete
Next: 3.4 Page and appendix agree
Briefing and Influence / Module 3 / 3.4
3.4 Page and appendix agree
Section 3.4 complete
Next: Module 3 check
Continue to the module check Recap this section Back to module 3
Briefing and Influence / Module 3 / Check
Module 3 check
Module 3 complete
Next: Module 4, Recommendations a reviewer can follow
Continue to module 4 Try it on your own question Recap module 3 Back to module 3
Briefing and Influence / Module 4 / 4.2
4.2 The six parts
Section 4.2 complete
Next: 4.3 An owner who can say yes
Briefing and Influence / Module 4 / 4.3
4.3 An owner who can say yes
Section 4.3 complete
Next: 4.4 The assumption and the revisit conditions
Briefing and Influence / Module 4 / 4.4
4.4 The assumption and the revisit conditions
Section 4.4 complete
Next: Module 4 check
Continue to the module check Recap this section Back to module 4
Briefing and Influence / Module 4 / Check
Module 4 check
Module 4 complete
Next: Module 5, Explain it so they can say it back
Continue to module 5 Try it on your own question Recap module 4 Back to module 4
Briefing and Influence / Module 5 / 5.1
5.1 A nod is not understanding
Section 5.1 complete
Next: 5.2 Plain words that keep the risk
Briefing and Influence / Module 5 / 5.2
5.2 Plain words that keep the risk
Section 5.2 complete
Next: 5.3 Questions that check the decision and the risk
Briefing and Influence / Module 5 / 5.3
5.3 Questions that check the decision and the risk
Section 5.3 complete
Next: 5.4 A second fault, a different owner
Briefing and Influence / Module 5 / 5.4
5.4 A second fault, a different owner
Section 5.4 complete
Next: Module 5 check
Continue to the module check Recap this section Back to module 5
Briefing and Influence / Module 5 / Check
Module 5 check
Module 5 complete
Next: Module 6, coming later
Back to the Path Try it on your own question Recap module 5 Back to module 5
Briefing and Influence / Module 1 / Recap
Recap card
1.1 Finding, overreach, implication
Finding, overreach, implication
- Finding: something the recorded figures support.
- Overreach: a conclusion the records cannot justify.
- Implication: an option the manager could consider.
Common mistake
Calling a proposal a fact. A review suggestion is not evidence that an action will work.
Briefing and Influence / Module 1 / Recap
Recap card
1.2 The limit beside the claim
The limit beside the claim
- A useful sentence has the measure, group and dates.
- Place the important uncertainty right next to the finding.
Common mistake
Hiding the period. A share of recorded invoices is not a forecast of future income.
Briefing and Influence / Module 1 / Recap
Recap card
1.3 Cause claims need care
Cause claims need care
- A record can attribute credit without showing cause.
- Say how credit was assigned, and what comparison is absent.
Common mistake
Replacing credited with caused. That small edit changes the meaning of 208 enquiries.
Briefing and Influence / Module 1 / Recap
Recap card
1.4 Answer the asked question
Answer the asked question
- Repeat the decision-maker’s question before analysing.
- State group, dates, source and what remains unknown.
Common mistake
Answering a different question. A recent invoice count is not a list of permanently lost customers.
Briefing and Influence / Module 1 / Recap
Recap card
Module 1: Say only what the evidence shows
Finding, overreach, implication
- Finding: something the recorded figures support.
- Overreach: a conclusion the records cannot justify.
- Implication: an option the manager could consider.
Common mistake
Calling a proposal a fact. A review suggestion is not evidence that an action will work.
The limit beside the claim
- A useful sentence has the measure, group and dates.
- Place the important uncertainty right next to the finding.
Common mistake
Hiding the period. A share of recorded invoices is not a forecast of future income.
Cause claims need care
- A record can attribute credit without showing cause.
- Say how credit was assigned, and what comparison is absent.
Common mistake
Replacing credited with caused. That small edit changes the meaning of 208 enquiries.
Answer the asked question
- Repeat the decision-maker’s question before analysing.
- State group, dates, source and what remains unknown.
Common mistake
Answering a different question. A recent invoice count is not a list of permanently lost customers.
Briefing and Influence / Module 2 / Recap
Recap card
2.1 Does the range cross the line?
Does the range cross the line?
- Create a lower and upper answer using the same measured group.
- Compare both ends with the clearly labelled practice decision rule.
Common mistake
Using the middle alone. A single number hides that 44.0% and 48.7% point to different decisions.
Briefing and Influence / Module 2 / Recap
Recap card
2.2 Material and immaterial limits
Material and immaterial limits
- Ask whether a limit could change the actual choice.
- Give crossing ranges prominence; place other limits briefly with their figures.
Common mistake
Equating size with importance. A range matters most when the decision could change within it.
Briefing and Influence / Module 2 / Recap
Recap card
2.3 What would change the answer
What would change the answer
- Name the specific missing evidence and who can verify it.
- Recalculate the original measure after the data gap closes.
Common mistake
Treating two record counts as the same. 317 shipment statuses are not 317 order-line outcomes.
Briefing and Influence / Module 2 / Recap
Recap card
2.4 One planning figure
One planning figure
- Label the chosen figure as a scenario if it depends on an assumption.
- Keep the full range and next verification step beside it.
Common mistake
Trading a range for certainty. A manager requesting one number does not make unknown outcomes known.
Briefing and Influence / Module 2 / Recap
Recap card
Module 2: Limits that change the decision
Does the range cross the line?
- Create a lower and upper answer using the same measured group.
- Compare both ends with the clearly labelled practice decision rule.
Common mistake
Using the middle alone. A single number hides that 44.0% and 48.7% point to different decisions.
Material and immaterial limits
- Ask whether a limit could change the actual choice.
- Give crossing ranges prominence; place other limits briefly with their figures.
Common mistake
Equating size with importance. A range matters most when the decision could change within it.
What would change the answer
- Name the specific missing evidence and who can verify it.
- Recalculate the original measure after the data gap closes.
Common mistake
Treating two record counts as the same. 317 shipment statuses are not 317 order-line outcomes.
One planning figure
- Label the chosen figure as a scenario if it depends on an assumption.
- Keep the full range and next verification step beside it.
Common mistake
Trading a range for certainty. A manager requesting one number does not make unknown outcomes known.
Briefing and Influence / Module 3 / Recap
Recap card
3.1 Method first or answer first
Method first or answer first
- Open with the decision you are asking the reader to make.
- Explain the reason and the evidence afterwards.
Common mistake
Opening with the data-cleaning story. Teun should see the proposed action before the technical sequence.
Briefing and Influence / Module 3 / Recap
Recap card
3.2 The five parts
The five parts
- Use ask, situation, evidence with limits, options, and next step.
- Keep evidence separate from possible actions.
Common mistake
A page without a decision ask. Lots of background can still leave Teun unsure what approval is sought.
Briefing and Influence / Module 3 / Recap
Recap card
3.3 Cut to fit
Cut to fit
- Protect the decision ask, important evidence and limit.
- Move technical process detail out of the main story.
Common mistake
Shortening away the uncertainty. A brief that is shorter but wrongly certain is not better.
Briefing and Influence / Module 3 / Recap
Recap card
3.4 Page and appendix agree
Page and appendix agree
- Recalculate every headline from the detail it claims to summarise.
- Check type, population, period and visual scale before sharing.
Common mistake
Relabelling a total. The 83 service cases are not 83 late-delivery cases.
Briefing and Influence / Module 3 / Recap
Recap card
Module 3: Answer first
Method first or answer first
- Open with the decision you are asking the reader to make.
- Explain the reason and the evidence afterwards.
Common mistake
Opening with the data-cleaning story. Teun should see the proposed action before the technical sequence.
The five parts
- Use ask, situation, evidence with limits, options, and next step.
- Keep evidence separate from possible actions.
Common mistake
A page without a decision ask. Lots of background can still leave Teun unsure what approval is sought.
Cut to fit
- Protect the decision ask, important evidence and limit.
- Move technical process detail out of the main story.
Common mistake
Shortening away the uncertainty. A brief that is shorter but wrongly certain is not better.
Page and appendix agree
- Recalculate every headline from the detail it claims to summarise.
- Check type, population, period and visual scale before sharing.
Common mistake
Relabelling a total. The 83 service cases are not 83 late-delivery cases.
Briefing and Influence / Module 4 / Recap
Recap card
4.1 A decision nobody can reconstruct
A decision nobody can reconstruct
- What must be kept so a reviewer can challenge a decision?
- Which record gaps would prevent reconstructing an approval?
Common mistake
Common mistake. A record of implementation is not a record of why the choice was made.
Briefing and Influence / Module 4 / Recap
Recap card
4.2 The six parts
The six parts
- Keep claim and source beside the proposed action.
- Record do nothing and why a rejected option lost.
Common mistake
Common mistake. Copying the preferred option without documenting its alternatives.
Briefing and Influence / Module 4 / Recap
Recap card
4.3 An owner who can say yes
An owner who can say yes
- Check the recorded limit before naming an owner.
- Keep the proposed fixture status visible.
Common mistake
Common mistake. Naming an available manager without checking their approval limit.
Briefing and Influence / Module 4 / Recap
Recap card
4.4 The assumption and the revisit conditions
The assumption and the revisit conditions
- State the protected channel and the unprotected channels.
- Make every revisit trigger measurable and attributable.
Common mistake
Common mistake. Claiming that a webshop interface protects orders from every channel.
Briefing and Influence / Module 4 / Recap
Recap card
Module 4: Recommendations a reviewer can follow
A decision nobody can reconstruct
- What must be kept so a reviewer can challenge a decision?
- Which record gaps would prevent reconstructing an approval?
Common mistake
Common mistake. A record of implementation is not a record of why the choice was made.
The six parts
- Keep claim and source beside the proposed action.
- Record do nothing and why a rejected option lost.
Common mistake
Common mistake. Copying the preferred option without documenting its alternatives.
An owner who can say yes
- Check the recorded limit before naming an owner.
- Keep the proposed fixture status visible.
Common mistake
Common mistake. Naming an available manager without checking their approval limit.
The assumption and the revisit conditions
- State the protected channel and the unprotected channels.
- Make every revisit trigger measurable and attributable.
Common mistake
Common mistake. Claiming that a webshop interface protects orders from every channel.
Briefing and Influence / Module 5 / Recap
Recap card
5.1 A nod is not understanding
A nod is not understanding
- State-back: ask the owner to say the decision and the risk in his own words.
- Revise: find the sentence the wrong state-back echoes, change it and ask again.
Example
S2 'IT restored the system' became 'IT fixed it'; the fix adds '0 of 21 batches came back'.
Common mistake
Believing a nod. Bram's reply was fluent and still lost the rebuild.
Briefing and Influence / Module 5 / Recap
Recap card
5.2 Plain words that keep the risk
Plain words that keep the risk
- Rebuilt from emails covers October 2024 only; November and December are thin with no recorded cause.
- Size it: 760 against 191 is 3.98 times, on a rebuilt base.
Example
October 2024 orders were rebuilt from emails, so that month is not a fair base for a year-on-year comparison.
Common mistake
Simplifying the month away. 'Some old data had a problem' is plain and drops the risk.
Briefing and Influence / Module 5 / Recap
Recap card
5.3 Questions that check the decision and the risk
Questions that check the decision and the risk
- Pick questions whose answers would show a specific wrong idea: Q3 for the restore, Q5 for 'only October'.
- Name every owner: Teun's invoices are thin before January 2025 too.
Example
Which months before January 2025 would you treat with care, and why?
Common mistake
Asking 'Does that make sense?' A yes exposes neither mistake.
Briefing and Influence / Module 5 / Recap
Recap card
5.4 A second fault, a different owner
A second fault, a different owner
- X-INC-2025-007 lost 0 of 3 acknowledged batches; all 3 were replayed from source.
- The route sets the owner: X-ITF-02 carries production confirmations, so it is Mira's.
Example
X-INC-2025-007 lost no acknowledged batches: 3 of 3 were replayed from source. Reports built on them still need a check.
Common mistake
Over-reading an outage. Down for two days does not mean production is missing.
Briefing and Influence / Module 5 / Recap
Recap card
Module 5: Explain it so they can say it back
A nod is not understanding
- State-back: ask the owner to say the decision and the risk in his own words.
- Revise: find the sentence the wrong state-back echoes, change it and ask again.
Example
S2 'IT restored the system' became 'IT fixed it'; the fix adds '0 of 21 batches came back'.
Common mistake
Believing a nod. Bram's reply was fluent and still lost the rebuild.
Plain words that keep the risk
- Rebuilt from emails covers October 2024 only; November and December are thin with no recorded cause.
- Size it: 760 against 191 is 3.98 times, on a rebuilt base.
Example
October 2024 orders were rebuilt from emails, so that month is not a fair base for a year-on-year comparison.
Common mistake
Simplifying the month away. 'Some old data had a problem' is plain and drops the risk.
Questions that check the decision and the risk
- Pick questions whose answers would show a specific wrong idea: Q3 for the restore, Q5 for 'only October'.
- Name every owner: Teun's invoices are thin before January 2025 too.
Example
Which months before January 2025 would you treat with care, and why?
Common mistake
Asking 'Does that make sense?' A yes exposes neither mistake.
A second fault, a different owner
- X-INC-2025-007 lost 0 of 3 acknowledged batches; all 3 were replayed from source.
- The route sets the owner: X-ITF-02 carries production confirmations, so it is Mira's.
Example
X-INC-2025-007 lost no acknowledged batches: 3 of 3 were replayed from source. Reports built on them still need a check.
Common mistake
Over-reading an outage. Down for two days does not mean production is missing.