CFE Day 1 quick-reference checks for baseline updates, strategic issues, option analysis, integration, recommendations, and board communication.
Use this cheat sheet after reading the CFE Day 1 guide pages. It compresses the response habits needed for Capstone-linked strategic analysis, integrated recommendations, professional judgment, and board-level communication.
| Step | Question | Output |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Baseline | What was true in the Capstone-style case context? | Stable starting point. |
| 2. Update | What changed in the current Day 1 case? | New strategic trigger. |
| 3. Issue | What decision does the board or senior management need to make? | Strategic issue statement. |
| 4. Analysis | What financial, qualitative, stakeholder, risk, and implementation facts matter? | Integrated support. |
| 5. Advice | What should the board do, with what conditions and monitoring? | Recommendation. |
flowchart LR
A["Baseline fact"] --> B["Current update"]
B --> C["Strategic issue"]
C --> D["Option comparison"]
D --> E["Recommendation"]
E --> F["Implementation and monitoring"]
Use the flow to prevent a descriptive response. Each major issue should move from what changed to what the board should do, not just from fact summary to generic pros and cons.
| Topic | Trigger | Response move |
|---|---|---|
| Capstone Linkage | Baseline fact, new update, mission, stakeholder, governance, ethics, or risk constraint appears. | Explain what changed and why it changes strategic priority. |
| Issue Analysis | Strategic option, transaction, financing, operations, market change, sustainability, technology, people, or legal constraint appears. | Compare options using feasibility, constraints, risk, and fit. |
| Recommendations | Calculation, qualitative factor, trade-off, uncertainty, technical cross-over, sequencing, or incomplete fact appears. | Integrate evidence and move clearly to a recommendation. |
| Response Quality | Board communication, management bias, issue overload, ethics, practicality, or pass-readiness weakness appears. | Write concise, skeptical, prioritized, and practical board advice. |
| Cue in the case | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| New financing limit, covenant, or cash pressure | It can make an attractive option infeasible or require sequencing. |
| Governance dispute or unclear authority | It affects who can decide, approve, monitor, or challenge management. |
| Stakeholder conflict | It changes the trade-off between value, mission, risk, and reputation. |
| Capacity or people constraint | It may make implementation risk more important than financial upside. |
| Ethics, credibility, or public-interest concern | It can override a narrow financial recommendation. |
| Mutually exclusive alternatives | The response should rank options, not analyse each one in isolation. |
Before finalizing advice, test whether the recommendation has all six elements:
| Element | Question |
|---|---|
| Strategic fit | Does the option fit mission, values, objectives, and current constraints? |
| Comparative support | Did you explain why this option is stronger than the rejected alternatives? |
| Financial implication | Did you use numbers only to support the strategic decision? |
| Qualitative implication | Did you address stakeholder, risk, ethics, capacity, and reputation effects? |
| Implementation | Did you state sequencing, owner, condition, or risk mitigation? |
| Monitoring | Did you name a practical measure the board can use after approval? |
Use these checks before writing the final advice paragraph for each major issue.
| Check | Weak response | Strong response |
|---|---|---|
| Board lens | Lists technical observations. | Explains what the board should approve, reject, defer, monitor, or investigate. |
| Current update | Repeats old Capstone context. | Names the new fact and why it changes the strategic decision. |
| Option comparison | Gives separate pros and cons. | Ranks options against the same objectives, constraints, and risks. |
| Consistency | Recommends choices that conflict with cash, capacity, mission, or governance. | Sequences recommendations so the overall plan is coherent. |
| Caveat | Avoids a conclusion because facts are incomplete. | Gives a recommendation with conditions and follow-up information needed. |
| Monitoring | Says management should monitor. | Names the measure, owner, timing, or board reporting point. |
These sentence frames keep Day 1 writing strategic and board-facing.
| Need | Sentence frame |
|---|---|
| Baseline update | “Since the baseline case, [new fact] changes the decision because [strategic implication].” |
| Issue statement | “The board must decide whether [option/action] is appropriate given [constraint/objective].” |
| Option comparison | “[Option A] is stronger than [Option B] on [criterion], but weaker on [risk or constraint].” |
| Integrated support | “Financially, [result]; qualitatively, [stakeholder/risk/governance fact]; together, these indicate [judgment].” |
| Recommendation | “I recommend [action], subject to [condition], because it best fits [mission/objective] and controls [risk].” |
| Monitoring | “The board should require [owner] to report [measure] by [timing or event].” |
| Mistake | Correction |
|---|---|
| Repeating Capstone facts without update analysis. | State what changed and why the change matters now. |
| Treating Day 1 like technical-depth Day 2. | Keep the response strategic, integrated, and board-level. |
| Analyzing options one at a time without comparison. | Rank alternatives against the same objectives and constraints. |
| Ignoring implementation. | State sequencing, owner, risk mitigation, and monitoring. |
| Following management preference without challenge. | Add professional skepticism and balanced advice. |
In the final review pass, reduce Day 1 notes to a short strategic response map.
| Map | Keep |
|---|---|
| Baseline map | Stable Capstone facts, current updates, changed assumptions, and new constraints. |
| Issue map | Board-level decisions, dependencies, mutually exclusive options, and priority order. |
| Evidence map | Limited calculations, stakeholder effects, governance concerns, risk, capacity, and implementation facts. |
| Recommendation map | Decision, reason, condition, owner, timing, monitoring, and caveat. |
Day 1 is not a technical-depth exercise. A compact, coherent recommendation that integrates the current case usually beats a long answer that lists facts without board-level judgment.
Before leaving a Day 1 response, confirm that each major issue has a current update, strategic implication, option analysis, constraint, recommendation, implementation step, monitoring point, and board-level communication. If a recommendation would surprise the board, add the one case fact that explains why it is still supportable.