# Internship Final Presentation: [Project title, employer, date]

> A template for the end-of-internship presentation that MBA summer interns give to their team and senior
> leadership: the storyline, an executive summary, the analysis with computed exhibits, the recommendation, an
> implementation plan, and preparation for questions. A complete worked example uses a fictional company (Corvane
> Robotics, a warehouse-robotics firm) and shows every number with its Excel formula. It is for MBA interns, and for
> students preparing field-project or consulting-club presentations. Source basis: answer-first and pyramid
> structure (Minto 2009), net present value (Fisher 1930) and standard corporate finance practice, written in our
> own words. Replace every [bracketed] value and every row marked *Example*. This is a communication aid, not
> financial advice.

<!--
Guidance: How to use this template
- Start the storyline (section 3) by week 6 of the internship and lock it two weeks before the presentation date. The last week is for dry runs and pre-wiring.
- Write the executive summary (section 4) before you build exhibits. Each exhibit then exists to prove one sentence of the summary.
- Every number on a slide must trace back to a model cell. Keep an exhibit register (section 5.5) with the source cell or formula for each figure.
- Clear confidential data with your manager before you put it in a deck that leaves the building, and follow the employer's policy on AI tools.
- Related templates: mba/mba-internship-plan, mba/mba-offer-negotiation, mba/mba-business-communication-card, mba/mba-npv-irr-card, mba/mba-pricing-card, mba/mba-field-project-report, mba/mba-group-project-report, mba/mba-case-write-up, business/executive-summary, business/memo, finance/investment-appraisal, career/ninety-day-plan
-->

## Document control

<!-- Guidance: The deck and the model are separate documents. Record the model version the deck is built on. -->

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Document ID | FINPRES-[YYYY]-001 |
| Presenter | [Your name] |
| Employer and team | [Employer, function] |
| Manager and sponsor | [Name, title] / [Executive sponsor] |
| Audience | [Leadership team, steering group, all interns] |
| Presentation date and length | YYYY-MM-DD, [20] minutes plus [15] minutes Q&A |
| Model file and version | [File name, v1.3] |
| Version | [0.1] |
| Status | [Draft / Storyline locked / Final] |
| Last updated | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Classification | [Employer classification, e.g. internal confidential] |

### Approvals

| Role | Name | Date | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manager (content and storyline) | [Name] | YYYY-MM-DD | [Approved / Changes] |
| Finance or data owner (numbers) | [Name] | YYYY-MM-DD | [Approved / Changes] |
| Confidentiality check | [Name] | YYYY-MM-DD | [Cleared / Redact] |

## Contents

1. Purpose and audience
2. Building the presentation: process
3. Storyline
4. Executive summary
5. Analysis and exhibits (worked example)
6. Recommendation
7. Implementation plan
8. Risks and what would change the answer
9. Q&A preparation
10. Delivery and dry runs
11. After the presentation
12. Quality checklist
13. Common mistakes

## 1. Purpose and audience

<!-- Guidance: Name the decision the audience can take at the end. A presentation without a decision is a status update. -->

The final presentation has two purposes. For the business, it should lead to a decision or a clear next step on the
problem you worked on. For you, it is often the one time senior people see your thinking directly, and their
impression feeds the full-time offer decision. Both purposes are served by the same thing: a clear recommendation,
supported by evidence the audience trusts, delivered in the time allowed, with honest answers to hard questions.

Start by writing down who is in the room and what each of them cares about. A chief financial officer will look at
the assumptions behind the numbers, a sales leader at what customers will accept, an operations leader at whether the
plan can be run. You built a stakeholder map in the internship plan (mba/mba-internship-plan); reuse it here.

| Item | Your answer |
|---|---|
| Decision requested | [Example: approve a 3-month pricing pilot for RaaS at the new price] |
| Most senior person in the room and their main concern | [Name, concern] |
| Who might disagree and why | [Name, reason] |
| What they already know | [Pre-read, earlier steering meetings] |
| Time: talk / Q&A | [20 / 15 minutes] |
| Format | [In person, video, pre-read plus discussion] |

## 2. Building the presentation: process

<!-- Guidance: Follow the order. Writing slides before the storyline is the most common cause of a weak final deck. -->

Build the deck in the order shown. The storyline and the executive summary come before any slide, because they
decide which exhibits you need. Each exhibit is then tested against its headline: if the data do not prove the
sentence, change the sentence or drop the exhibit. Pre-wiring and dry runs come last but take real time; plan at least
a week for them.

```mermaid
flowchart TD
    A["Key question and decision requested"] --> B["Storyline: governing thought and 3 to 4 key messages"]
    B --> C["Executive summary in prose"]
    C --> D["Exhibit list: one exhibit per supporting point"]
    D --> E["Build exhibits from the model, register each number"]
    E --> F{"Does each exhibit prove its headline?"}
    F -->|"No"| G["Rewrite the headline or drop the exhibit"]
    G --> D
    F -->|"Yes"| H["Pre-wire key stakeholders"]
    H --> I["Dry runs with timing and hostile questions"]
    I --> J["Final presentation"]
    J --> K["Follow-up note and handover"]
```

## 3. Storyline

<!-- Guidance: Test the storyline by reading only the slide headlines in order. They should read as a complete argument. -->

A good business presentation puts the answer first. Minto's pyramid principle (Minto 2009) organises a document
around one governing thought (the recommendation), supported by a small number of key messages, each supported in
turn by evidence. The key messages should be mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive for the question asked,
and they should be either a logical chain (deductive) or a set of parallel reasons (inductive). The slide headlines,
read in order, carry the storyline; the body of each slide is evidence for its headline.

A useful opening is situation, complication, resolution: what the audience already accepts, what has changed or is
wrong, and what you propose. Keep the situation to two sentences; senior audiences know their business.

| Element | Your text | Corvane example *(Example)* |
|---|---|---|
| Situation | [ ] | Corvane sells warehouse robots outright and, since last year, as robots-as-a-service (RaaS) at USD 1,100 per robot per month |
| Complication | [ ] | 61.1% of the warehouses we interviewed prefer RaaS, but at today's price each RaaS robot is worth much less to Corvane than a sale |
| Governing thought (recommendation) | [ ] | Reprice RaaS to USD 1,525 per robot per month for new contracts and run a 3-month pilot |
| Key message 1 | [ ] | Customers want RaaS for cash and risk reasons, not only price |
| Key message 2 | [ ] | At USD 1,100 a RaaS robot creates USD 9,506 of NPV against USD 27,012 for a sale |
| Key message 3 | [ ] | Between about USD 1,505 and USD 1,555 both Corvane and the customer are better off than with a sale |
| Key message 4 | [ ] | A pilot with three customers tests acceptance with limited risk |

Slide headline list (the "ghost deck"). Write the headlines before the slides:

| Slide | Headline (full sentence, under 15 words) | Exhibit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 *(Example)* | RaaS at a new price can grow adoption without giving up value | Title and recommendation |
| 2 *(Example)* | Most mid-size warehouses we interviewed prefer RaaS to buying | Exhibit 1 |
| 3 *(Example)* | Today's RaaS price earns a third of the value of a sale | Exhibit 2 |
| 4 *(Example)* | A narrow price band makes both sides better off | Exhibit 3 |
| 5 *(Example)* | The answer turns on residual value and the discount rate | Exhibit 4 |
| 6 *(Example)* | A three-month pilot tests the price with limited risk | Implementation plan |
| [n] | [ ] | [ ] |

## 4. Executive summary

<!-- Guidance: One page or one slide, 150 to 250 words. If the audience reads only this, they should know what you recommend, why, and what you need from them. -->

Write the summary in full sentences. Lead with the recommendation, then the two or three reasons, then the ask.

**Template**

- Recommendation: [what, how much, by when].
- Why: [reason 1 with its key number], [reason 2 with its key number], [reason 3].
- Risk and mitigation: [the main thing that could make this wrong and how the plan handles it].
- Decision requested today: [specific decision].

**Worked example *(Example)***

We recommend that Corvane reprice robots-as-a-service to USD 1,525 per robot per month for new mid-size warehouse
contracts and test the price with three pilot customers over three months. Customers want RaaS: 11 of the 18
warehouses we interviewed (61.1%) prefer it to buying, mainly to avoid capital spending and to transfer maintenance
risk. At the current USD 1,100 a month, however, a RaaS robot is worth USD 9,506 to Corvane in present-value terms
over five years, against USD 27,012 for an outright sale with a service contract. At USD 1,525, RaaS is worth USD
27,890 to Corvane, slightly more than a sale, and still costs the customer USD 1,373 less in present value than
buying. The band in which both sides gain is narrow (about USD 1,505 to USD 1,555), so the pilot should test
acceptance before a full price change. We ask the leadership team to approve the pilot and name a commercial owner
today.

## 5. Analysis and exhibits (worked example)

<!-- Guidance: One exhibit per message. Label every axis and unit, put the source and date under each exhibit, and state the assumptions in a table the audience can challenge. -->

### 5.1 Assumptions *(Example)*

All figures are per robot, over a five-year horizon, with annual cash flows at year end. They are fictional and for
illustration only.

| ID | Assumption | Value | Source *(Example)* |
|---|---|---|---|
| A-01 | Corvane build cost per robot (year 0) | USD 30,000 | FP&A cost model |
| A-02 | Outright sale price (year 0) | USD 48,000 | Current price list |
| A-03 | Service contract with a sale (years 1 to 5) | USD 6,000 a year | Current price list |
| A-04 | Corvane service cost per robot | USD 3,500 a year | Service cost data |
| A-05 | RaaS price (current) | USD 1,100 a month (USD 13,200 a year) | Current price list |
| A-06 | Residual value of a returned RaaS robot at end of year 5 | USD 8,000 | Refurbishment team estimate |
| A-07 | Corvane discount rate | 12% | Finance hurdle rate |
| A-08 | Typical customer discount rate | 10% | Customer interviews (range 8% to 14%) |
| A-09 | RaaS service cost borne by Corvane | Included in A-04 | Contract terms |
| A-10 | Customer's resale value of an owned robot at end of year 5 | USD 0 (no second-hand market reported in interviews; only Corvane can refurbish) | Customer interviews |

### 5.2 Exhibit 1: customer preference *(Example)*

| Preference | Warehouses | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Prefer RaaS | 11 | 61.1% |
| Prefer to buy | 5 | 27.8% |
| Undecided | 2 | 11.1% |
| **Total interviewed** | **18** | **100.0%** |

Excel: share `=B2/$B$5`. Source: 18 structured interviews, weeks 2 to 5 *(Example)*. Note on the slide that this is
a small, non-random sample: it shows direction and reasons, not market share.

### 5.3 Exhibit 2: value to Corvane, sale versus RaaS at today's price *(Example)*

Cash flows per robot to Corvane (USD):

| Year | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sale: price less build cost, then service margin | 18,000 | 2,500 | 2,500 | 2,500 | 2,500 | 2,500 |
| RaaS at USD 1,100: build cost, then fees less service cost (year 5 includes residual 8,000) | -30,000 | 9,700 | 9,700 | 9,700 | 9,700 | 17,700 |

Net present value at 12%, using the definition

$$
NPV = \sum_{t=0}^{T} \frac{CF_t}{(1+r)^t}
$$

where $CF_t$ is the cash flow in year $t$, $r$ the discount rate and $T$ the horizon (5 years).

| Measure | Sale | RaaS at USD 1,100 | Excel |
|---|---|---|---|
| NPV at 12% | USD 27,012 | USD 9,506 | `=NPV(12%,C2:G2)+B2` |
| IRR | not meaningful (no negative flow) | 23.05% | `=IRR(B3:G3)` |
| Undiscounted payback | immediate | during year 4 (cumulative USD -900 at end of year 3, USD 8,800 at end of year 4) | running total `=SUM($B3:C3)` |

Remember that Excel's `NPV` discounts its first value by one period, so the year-0 flow is added outside the
function. The 12% annuity factor for five years is 3.6048 (`=PV(12%,5,-1)`).

Headline: today's RaaS price earns about a third of the value of a sale (9,506 / 27,012 = 0.35). The IRR of 23.05% is
above the hurdle rate, which is why the price looked acceptable; the comparison that matters is against the sale the
customer would otherwise make.

### 5.4 Exhibit 3: the price band where both sides gain *(Example)*

Two break-even prices define the band:

- Corvane break-even: the monthly price $m$ at which RaaS NPV equals sale NPV. Solving
  $-30{,}000 + (12m - 3{,}500)\times 3.6048 + 8{,}000/1.12^5 = 27{,}012$ gives $m \approx$ USD 1,504.70.
  Excel: Goal Seek on the RaaS NPV cell, or `=(27012+30000-8000/1.12^5+3500*PV(12%,5,-1))/(12*PV(12%,5,-1))`.
- Customer break-even: the price at which the present value of RaaS fees equals the present value of buying (USD
  48,000 plus USD 6,000 a year at 10%, which is USD 70,745). With a 10% annuity factor of 3.7908, $m = 70{,}745 / (12
  \times 3.7908) \approx$ USD 1,555.19. Excel: `=(48000+6000*PV(10%,5,-1))/(12*PV(10%,5,-1))`.

| RaaS price a month (USD) | Corvane NPV per robot at 12% (USD) | Customer PV of RaaS fees at 10% (USD) |
|---|---|---|
| 900 | 854 | 40,940 |
| 1,000 | 5,180 | 45,489 |
| 1,100 (current) | 9,506 | 50,038 |
| 1,200 | 13,831 | 54,587 |
| 1,300 | 18,157 | 59,136 |
| 1,400 | 22,483 | 63,685 |
| 1,500 | 26,809 | 68,234 |
| 1,525 (recommended) | 27,890 | 69,371 |

Reference lines: sale NPV to Corvane USD 27,012; customer PV of buying USD 70,745. At USD 1,525 Corvane gains USD 878
per robot against a sale and the customer saves USD 1,373 against buying. RaaS at USD 1,525 has an IRR of 43.00% and
pays back during year 3 (cumulative USD -400 at the end of year 2).

```vega-lite
{
  "$schema": "https://vega.github.io/schema/vega-lite/v5.json",
  "description": "Corvane NPV per RaaS robot by monthly price, with the sale NPV as a reference line (Example)",
  "width": 420,
  "height": 260,
  "layer": [
    {
      "data": {
        "values": [
          {"price": 900, "npv": 854},
          {"price": 1000, "npv": 5180},
          {"price": 1100, "npv": 9506},
          {"price": 1200, "npv": 13831},
          {"price": 1300, "npv": 18157},
          {"price": 1400, "npv": 22483},
          {"price": 1500, "npv": 26809},
          {"price": 1525, "npv": 27890}
        ]
      },
      "mark": {"type": "line", "point": true},
      "encoding": {
        "x": {"field": "price", "type": "quantitative", "title": "RaaS price per robot per month (USD)", "scale": {"domain": [900, 1550]}},
        "y": {"field": "npv", "type": "quantitative", "title": "Corvane NPV per robot at 12% (USD)"}
      }
    },
    {
      "data": {"values": [{"sale": 27012}]},
      "mark": {"type": "rule", "strokeDash": [6, 4]},
      "encoding": {"y": {"field": "sale", "type": "quantitative"}}
    }
  ]
}
```

### 5.5 Exhibit 4: sensitivity at the recommended price *(Example)*

| Change (one at a time) | RaaS NPV at USD 1,525 (USD) | Sale NPV (USD) | RaaS still better? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base case (12%, residual 8,000) | 27,890 | 27,012 | Yes |
| Residual value 0 | 23,351 | 27,012 | No |
| Residual value 4,000 | 25,620 | 27,012 | No |
| Residual value 12,000 | 30,160 | 27,012 | Yes |
| Discount rate 10% | 31,071 | 27,477 | Yes |
| Discount rate 14% | 24,965 | 26,583 | No |

The recommendation depends on two assumptions the audience will question: the residual value of returned robots and
the discount rate. Say so on the slide. That honesty is what makes the rest of the analysis credible, and it leads
directly to the pilot design: the pilot should measure refurbishment cost and resale value.

### 5.6 Exhibit register

| Exhibit | Figure | Model cell or formula | Checked by | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 *(Example)* | Sale NPV 27,012 | `Model!H12 =NPV(12%,C12:G12)+B12` | FP&A lead | YYYY-MM-DD |
| 3 *(Example)* | Break-even 1,504.70 | `Model!H20` Goal Seek | FP&A lead | YYYY-MM-DD |
| [n] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |

## 6. Recommendation

<!-- Guidance: State the recommendation as a decision with an owner, a number and a date. List what you are not recommending, too. -->

| Item | Your answer | Corvane example *(Example)* |
|---|---|---|
| Recommendation | [ ] | Reprice RaaS for new mid-size contracts to USD 1,525 per robot per month |
| Scope | [ ] | New contracts only; existing contracts renew at current terms until their review date |
| Why now | [ ] | RaaS demand is growing and each new contract at USD 1,100 locks in lower value for five years |
| What we are not recommending | [ ] | Withdrawing RaaS, or changing the outright sale price |
| Decision requested | [ ] | Approve a 3-month pilot; name a commercial owner |
| Expected value | [ ] | For a 40-robot pilot cohort, Corvane NPV rises from USD 380,230 at USD 1,100 to USD 1,115,604 at USD 1,525 (40 times the unrounded 27,890), against USD 1,080,478 if the same robots were sold |

Excel: cohort value `=40*H3` where H3 is the per-robot NPV. Note that the cohort figure assumes every robot is placed
at the given price, which the pilot will test.

## 7. Implementation plan

<!-- Guidance: Show the first 90 days in detail and the rest in outline. Name an owner for each step: a plan without owners is a wish list. -->

| Step | Owner *(Example)* | Start | End | Success measure |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Select 3 pilot customers from the interview set | Head of Customer Success | Week 1 | Week 2 | 3 signed letters of intent |
| Draft pilot contract terms with Legal | Commercial owner | Week 1 | Week 4 | Terms approved |
| Track refurbishment cost and resale value of returned robots | Operations | Week 1 | Ongoing | Monthly report |
| Pilot runs | Commercial owner | Week 4 | Week 16 | Acceptance rate and churn |
| Review and decide on full roll-out | VP Strategy and BizOps | Week 17 | Week 18 | Decision recorded |

```mermaid
flowchart LR
    P1["Select pilot customers"] --> P2["Contract terms with Legal"]
    P2 --> P3["Pilot (12 weeks)"]
    P1 --> P4["Track residual value data"]
    P4 --> P5{"Review: acceptance and residual value"}
    P3 --> P5
    P5 -->|"Accepted, residual at or above estimate"| R1["Roll out new price"]
    P5 -->|"Low acceptance"| R2["Test contract terms, not only price"]
    P5 -->|"Residual below estimate"| R3["Re-run the band with new residual"]
```

## 8. Risks and what would change the answer

<!-- Guidance: Name the two or three assumptions that would reverse the recommendation, with the threshold. This is the slide senior audiences trust most. -->

| ID | Risk | Threshold that changes the answer | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|
| R-01 *(Example)* | Residual value lower than estimated | Below about USD 6,452 the RaaS NPV at USD 1,525 falls under the sale NPV | Measure in the pilot; price the band on actual data |
| R-02 *(Example)* | Customers reject the higher price | Pilot acceptance below [target %] | Offer longer terms or uptime guarantees instead of a lower price |
| R-03 *(Example)* | Higher cost of capital | Discount rate of 14% reverses the ranking | Revisit with Finance if rates move |
| R-04 *(Example)* | Buying is worth more to the customer than assumed | The customer break-even falls below Corvane's USD 1,504.70, and the band closes, if an owned robot resells for more than about USD 3,700 after five years or the customer's discount rate is below about 8.1% | Ask pilot customers about resale and financing costs; offer a buy-back option |
| R-[n] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |

For R-01, the threshold is the residual value $V$ that makes the two NPVs equal: $27{,}890 - (8{,}000 - V)/1.12^5 =
27{,}012$, so $V = 8{,}000 - 878 \times 1.12^5 \approx$ USD 6,452 (with unrounded NPVs). Excel: Goal Seek the RaaS NPV
cell to equal the sale NPV by changing the residual cell. Replace the threshold with the value from your own model.

For R-04, the customer side is checked the same way. If an owned robot is worth $V_c$ to the buyer at the end of
year 5, the customer break-even becomes $m = (70{,}745 - V_c/1.10^5)/(12 \times 3.7908)$, which equals USD 1,504.70 at
$V_c \approx$ USD 3,699. With $V_c = 0$, the customer break-even equals USD 1,504.70 when the customer's discount rate is
about 8.1% (at 8% it is USD 1,501.83). Excel: Goal Seek on the customer break-even cell. The band is narrow on both
sides, which is a further reason to pilot before a full price change.

## 9. Q&A preparation

<!-- Guidance: Write the ten hardest questions you could be asked and a 30-second answer for each. Put the data you need in a backup appendix. -->

Most of the impression you leave is formed in Q&A. Prepare by asking your manager and one sceptical stakeholder
what they would ask. Answer in three parts: the direct answer, the evidence, and what it means for the
recommendation. If you do not know, say so and say when you will follow up; never guess a number.

| ID | Likely question | Who asks | 30-second answer | Backup slide |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q-01 *(Example)* | "Eighteen interviews is a small sample. Why trust it?" | CFO | It shows reasons, not market share; the pilot is designed to measure acceptance | Interview method |
| Q-02 *(Example)* | "Why not just raise the sale price?" | CRO | Out of scope; customers who prefer RaaS do so to avoid capital spending, which a sale price does not address | Exhibit 1 reasons |
| Q-03 *(Example)* | "What if a competitor undercuts us?" | CEO | The band gives about USD 50 a month of room; contract terms (uptime, upgrades) are a stronger defence than price | Competitor scan |
| Q-04 *(Example)* | "Where does 12% come from?" | Finance | Corvane's hurdle rate set by Finance; at 10% RaaS looks better, at 14% worse | Exhibit 4 |
| Q-05 | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| Q-06 | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| Q-07 | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| Q-08 | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| Q-09 | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| Q-10 | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |

Types of question to prepare for: the data (sample, source, period), the method (why NPV, why this horizon), the
assumptions (the two that drive the answer), alternatives you rejected, implementation (who, cost, time), the
politics (who loses if this happens) and the personal one ("What did you learn this summer?").

## 10. Delivery and dry runs

<!-- Guidance: Two dry runs at least, one with your manager and one with someone who will interrupt you. -->

- Time the talk at 70% of the slot; questions start early in senior meetings.
- Open with the recommendation, not with your summer story.
- Speak to the headline, then point to the evidence on the slide; do not read the slide.
- Keep a printed one-page summary for anyone who joins late.
- Pre-wire: show the key exhibits privately to the two or three people most likely to object, a few days before.
- For video presentations, test screen sharing, send the deck in advance, and name a colleague to watch the chat.

| Dry run | Date | Audience | Time taken | Main feedback | Changed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 *(Example)* | YYYY-MM-DD | Manager | 24 min (target 20) | Cut the method slide; lead with Exhibit 3 | Yes |
| 2 | YYYY-MM-DD | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |

## 11. After the presentation

<!-- Guidance: Send the follow-up note within 24 hours. It is the last written impression before the offer decision. -->

Within one working day, send a short note to the decision makers and your manager: thank them, restate the decision
taken (or the open question), list any follow-ups you promised with dates, and attach the final deck and handover
pack. Then complete the handover listed in mba/mba-internship-plan and record the feedback you received in your
learning log. If an offer conversation follows, use mba/mba-offer-negotiation.

| Follow-up | Owner | Due | Done |
|---|---|---|---|
| Thank-you and decision note | [Your name] | YYYY-MM-DD | [ ] |
| Answers to open questions from Q&A | [Your name] | YYYY-MM-DD | [ ] |
| Handover pack (deck, model, assumptions log, notes) | [Your name] | YYYY-MM-DD | [ ] |

## 12. Quality checklist

<!-- Guidance: Run through this after dry run 1 and again the day before. -->

- [ ] The headlines alone tell the full argument.
- [ ] The recommendation is on the first content slide, with a number and a decision requested.
- [ ] The executive summary fits on one page and has been read by the manager.
- [ ] Every figure traces to a model cell in the exhibit register and has been checked by the data owner.
- [ ] Units, time period and source are on every exhibit.
- [ ] Assumptions that drive the answer are shown with thresholds.
- [ ] The implementation plan names owners and dates.
- [ ] Ten hard questions have prepared answers and backup slides.
- [ ] Confidential data cleared for this audience.
- [ ] Talk fits 70% of the time slot.
- [ ] Follow-up note drafted in advance.

## 13. Common mistakes

<!-- Guidance: Read this list before you build the first slide. -->

1. **Chronological storytelling.** "First I did interviews, then I built a model" buries the answer. Lead with the recommendation.
2. **Topic headlines.** "Pricing analysis" says nothing; "Today's price earns a third of the value of a sale" makes a claim.
3. **Too many exhibits.** One exhibit per message; move the rest to an appendix.
4. **Numbers that do not tie.** A figure on slide 3 that differs from slide 7 by rounding destroys trust; use the exhibit register.
5. **Hiding the weak assumption.** Senior people will find it; showing it first with a threshold earns credibility.
6. **No decision requested.** Without an ask, the meeting ends with "interesting, thanks".
7. **Comparing against the wrong alternative.** In the example, the RaaS IRR of 23% beats the hurdle rate, but the right comparison is against the sale.
8. **Excel NPV used on the whole range.** `=NPV(r, B2:G2)` discounts year 0 by one period; add year 0 outside the function.
9. **Surprising stakeholders.** Disagreement in the room that could have been found in a pre-wire meeting looks like poor stakeholder management.
10. **Guessing in Q&A.** "I will check and come back to you by Thursday" is a strong answer.
11. **Over-running.** Senior meetings start late and end on time; a 20-minute slot often becomes 12.
12. **Forgetting the handover.** The deck without the model and assumptions log cannot be acted on after you leave.

## Sources and further reading

<!-- Guidance: These works explain the structure and the finance. Your employer's presentation standards come first. -->

- Minto, B. (2009). *The Pyramid Principle: Logic in Writing and Thinking* (3rd ed.). FT Prentice Hall. Answer-first
  structure, governing thought and key messages.
- Fisher, I. (1930). *The Theory of Interest*. Macmillan. The foundation of discounting future cash flows used in
  net present value.
- Duarte, N. (2010). *Resonate: Present Visual Stories that Transform Audiences*. Wiley. Story structure for
  presentations.
- Tufte, E. R. (2001). *The Visual Display of Quantitative Information* (2nd ed.). Graphics Press. Clear exhibits.
- Brealey, R. A., Myers, S. C. and Allen, F. *Principles of Corporate Finance* (current edition). McGraw Hill. NPV,
  IRR and sensitivity analysis.
- Related templates: mba/mba-npv-irr-card, mba/mba-pricing-card, mba/mba-business-communication-card,
  mba/mba-internship-plan, business/executive-summary, finance/investment-appraisal.

## Revision history

<!-- Guidance: Version the deck after each dry run. Record the model version used. -->

| Version | Date | Author | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.1 | YYYY-MM-DD | [Name] | First version from template |
| [0.2] | YYYY-MM-DD | [Name] | [Storyline locked after manager review] |
| [1.0] | YYYY-MM-DD | [Name] | [Final, presented] |

## Standard and licence note

Structure aligned with the answer-first pyramid principle (Minto 2009) and standard discounted cash flow practice
(Fisher 1930; corporate finance textbooks). The text, the Corvane Robotics example and all calculations are original,
and the company, people and figures are fictional. The template is not affiliated with or endorsed by any business
school, employer or consulting firm. Check your employer's presentation and confidentiality standards before you
use it. Template licence: MIT.