"I have to put this in front of the exec committee in three weeks, and there is nobody here I can argue it through with first."
These usually arrive as a request for a deck. The first conversation is spent on what is actually being decided, which is frequently not what was named, and on what the people approving it will want to know before they say yes.
Build or rebuild the analysis the argument rests on. Cases rarely fail because a number is wrong. They fail because the numbers answer a question nobody asked. Work out what would have to be true for this to be the right call, then check whether it is.
Structure the argument, write the narrative around it, and go through the questions it will get. I can sit in the meeting or stay out of it entirely.
The hard part is rarely the analysis. It is that most people at this level have nobody to test an argument with who has no stake in the outcome.
What arrives is an argument that has already been through its first challenge, and the analysis underneath it in a form you can keep using.
How visible this is inside your business is your call. Some clients keep it between us. Others bring me into calls with their team.
In scope: the decision, the analysis behind it, and the document that carries it.
Out of scope: what happens after it is approved. This gets the decision made and defensible; delivery stays with the business.
Fixed price, not a day rate. The scope is agreed up front and the price does not move with it. If the work takes longer than expected, that is my problem rather than yours, which is the right way round.
Two shapes. A single piece, usually a week or two: one deck, one analysis, or a read on whether an argument holds up. Or four weeks on one decision, which is the full method above.
Quoted after a short call.
Where AI does part of the work, I say which part. Some of the analysis and model building uses AI tooling. The judgement, the method and the conclusions are mine, and I will tell you which is which if you ask.