# Synthesis Framework

How to turn multiple role outputs into a single, useful response for the founder. Synthesis is the highest-value function of the Chief of Staff — it's not about summarizing, it's about integrating.

---

## The Problem with Multi-Role Output

Without synthesis, multiple advisors produce noise:
- Overlapping advice
- Contradictions without resolution
- Action items from every role that compete for priority
- Founder left to figure out what to do with it all

Synthesis turns this into signal: one clear picture, explicit conflicts named, prioritized actions, one decision point.

---

## Phase 1: Collect and Read

Before writing anything, read all role responses completely. Look for:

**Consensus signals:**
- Same recommendation from 2+ roles independently
- Same risk identified from different angles
- Same root cause named without coordination

**Conflict signals:**
- One role says X, another says not-X
- Same data interpreted differently
- Competing resource requests (CFO says cut costs, CRO says invest in sales)
- Different time horizons (CTO wants to fix tech debt now, CPO wants to ship features now)

**Gap signals:**
- A critical dimension no role addressed
- A risk nobody flagged
- An assumption baked in that nobody questioned

---

## Phase 2: Extract Themes

A theme is a finding that appears in 2+ role responses, even if framed differently.

**How to identify:**
1. List every distinct point from every role response
2. Group points that are about the same underlying issue
3. Name the group with a clear, plain-language label
4. Note which roles contributed to it

**Example:**
> CFO: "The burn multiple is 3.2 — unsustainable without revenue acceleration."
> CRO: "We need 3 more sales cycles to hit targets, minimum 90 days."
> COO: "Three positions are open that will cost $40K/month when filled."
>
> Theme: **Cash position is tighter than the headline number suggests.** (CFO + CRO + COO)

**Limit to 3 themes.** More than 3 means you're not synthesizing — you're listing.

---

## Phase 3: Surface Conflicts

Name every conflict explicitly. Don't resolve it — present it.

**Conflict types:**

### Resource conflict
Two roles want the same budget, headcount, or time.
> "CFO wants to delay the new hire until Q3. CHRO says the team is already at capacity and another quarter will cause attrition. Both are right from their domain."

### Priority conflict
Two roles disagree on what's most important right now.
> "CTO wants 6 weeks on infrastructure to prevent outages. CPO wants those same engineers on the new feature for the sales pipeline. This isn't a technical question — it's a risk tolerance question."

### Time horizon conflict
Two roles are optimizing for different time frames.
> "CRO is optimizing for this quarter's close rate. CMO is optimizing for brand that compounds over 18 months. Both strategies are valid. They require different budget allocations."

### Assumption conflict
Two roles have incompatible assumptions baked in.
> "CFO's model assumes 15% MoM growth. CRO says realistic growth is 8% given the sales cycle length. The financial model needs to be rebuilt on the CRO's number."

**Present conflicts without picking sides.** The founder decides which trade-off to accept.

---

## Phase 4: Derive Action Items

From the consensus themes and the non-conflicting role outputs, derive concrete actions.

**Action item criteria:**
- Specific (not "improve the process" — "map the QA process and find the bottleneck")
- Owned (assign to a role or person)
- Time-bound (this week / this quarter / before next board)
- Consequence-linked (why does it matter if it slips)

**Good example:**
> **Action:** Build an updated 18-month financial model using CRO's 8% MoM growth assumption.
> **Owner:** CFO
> **By:** End of week
> **Why it matters:** Current fundraising conversations are based on a model that's too optimistic.

**Bad example:**
> Review the financial model with the team.

**Limit to 5 actions.** If there are more, prioritize by impact and flag the rest as backlog.

---

## Phase 5: Identify the Founder Decision Point

Every board meeting ends with one question for the founder. Just one.

**How to find it:**
- It's usually the conflict that can't be resolved without a values choice
- It's the question where both sides have a legitimate case
- It's the thing none of the advisors can decide unilaterally

**Frame it cleanly:**
> "The C-suite is aligned on the actions above, but there's one thing that needs your call: [specific decision]. [Role A] recommends X because [reason]. [Role B] recommends Y because [reason]. This is ultimately a question of [underlying trade-off — growth vs profitability / speed vs stability / short-term vs long-term]."

**Don't present multiple decision points.** Force the synthesis down to one. If there are genuinely two unrelated decisions, separate them into two outputs.

---

## Output Format

```markdown
## [Topic] — C-Suite Synthesis

### What We Agree On
[Theme 1 with 1–2 sentences]
[Theme 2 with 1–2 sentences]
[Theme 3 with 1–2 sentences]

### The Disagreement
[Name the conflict]
[Role A position + reasoning]
[Role B position + reasoning]
[What the conflict is really about]

### Recommended Actions
1. **[Action]** — [Owner] — [Timeline] — [Why it matters]
2. **[Action]** — [Owner] — [Timeline]
3. **[Action]** — [Owner] — [Timeline]
4. **[Action]** — [Owner] — [Timeline]
5. **[Action]** — [Owner] — [Timeline]

### Your Decision Point
[One question for the founder. Two options with their trade-offs. No recommendation — just clarity.]
```

---

## Quality Standards for Synthesis

Before delivering:

**Compression test:** Could a founder read this in 3 minutes and know exactly what to do? If not, cut.

**Honesty test:** Did you name the real conflicts, or smooth them over? Smoothed conflicts come back as surprises.

**Specificity test:** Are the action items specific enough to act on, or are they goals masquerading as actions?

**Decision point test:** Is there one clear thing for the founder to decide, or are you leaving them with a mess?

**Context test:** Would this advice make sense for any company, or is it clearly calibrated to this company's stage, challenges, and founder?

---

## Common Synthesis Failures

**The summary trap:** You summarize each role's output in sequence. This is not synthesis — it's transcription. Synthesis requires cutting.

**The false consensus:** You say "the team agrees" when there's actually a meaningful conflict. Named conflicts are useful. Hidden conflicts are dangerous.

**The advice avalanche:** 15 action items that no one can action. Cut to 5. If everything is priority, nothing is.

**The unresolved conflict dump:** You present the conflict and then leave the founder to figure it out. Your job is to frame the choice cleanly, not to resolve it — but also not to dump it raw.

**The context-free advice:** The synthesis sounds like it came from a textbook, not from someone who knows this company. If you can swap the company name and it still reads the same, it's not synthesized.

---

## When Synthesis Reveals Deadlock

Sometimes roles genuinely can't align and the synthesis produces no clear direction.

**Signs of deadlock:**
- Every theme has a counter-theme
- Every action has a conflict attached
- The "decision point" is actually three decisions

**What to do:**
1. Name the deadlock explicitly: *"The C-suite is genuinely split on this. Here's why."*
2. Present the two paths cleanly with consequences
3. Recommend a time-boxed experiment if possible: *"You don't have to decide between X and Y permanently. Run X for 30 days with a clear metric for success, then reassess."*
4. Flag it as a strategic question that may need external input (advisor, board, market data)

Deadlock is honest. Fake consensus is not.
