Why we publish the limitations section first in every briefing
A small editorial discipline that has shaped the way our advisory clients respond to long briefings.
When we re-organised the briefing template last year, we made a small change that has had outsized effect: the limitations section now appears in the first third of the article, not the last. Readers see what the briefing will not address before they see what it will.
This was uncomfortable at first. There is a marketing instinct that wants the limitations near the end, after the reader is already invested. We tried it both ways and the early-limitations layout produced calmer, better-scoped follow-up conversations from clients. They came in already knowing what was out of scope, so the discussion could focus on what was in scope.
We also found it changed how the writers thought about the briefing. If the limitations section is near the top, you cannot finesse it on the way out. You have to actually decide, before you start writing, what the briefing will not cover. That decision has improved the briefings.
The one tension we have not fully resolved is that early limitations occasionally lose readers who decide the briefing is not for them. We accept that loss; we would rather have the right reader fully than the wrong reader briefly.
Other recent blog notes
A short note on what "refactoring" should mean in 2025
A working definition we keep coming back to during advisory kickoffs, and the three distortions of the term we politely refuse to accept.
2026-02-08Five questions we ask before recommending a platform investment
A short, repeatable diagnostic we use during retainer kickoffs to keep platform conversations honest.
2026-01-19Notes from a retainer that did not renew
Honest reflections on a quarterly retainer that ended at the planned end date, and what we learned that has changed how we run kickoffs.