Playbooks
1. Board Strategy - Constitutional Alignment
How to Use PreEmpt.Life to Prepare a Board for a Major Strategic Decision
Making Humans Wiser, Not Just Smarter
Version 1.0 | February 2026
PHASE 3: BOARD MEMBER PREPARATION
We are the only platform developing humans AND methodologies simultaneously. Board members are not passive recipients of analysis; they are active participants in sense-making.
3.1 Cognitive Defence (Layer 2)
Before the board sees any options, ALEXIS surfaces the biases that typically corrupt strategic decisions.
| Bias Pattern | How It Distorts Strategy |
|---|---|
| Herd Following | “Everyone else is doing it” pressure. ALEXIS separates competitive necessity from bandwagon anxiety. |
| Anchoring | First number heard anchors all discussion. ALEXIS provides range-based estimates. |
| Sunk Cost | “We’ve already invested £X.” ALEXIS separates past investment from future decision quality. |
| Optimism Bias | Timelines and benefits systematically overestimated. ALEXIS provides calibrated confidence ranges. |
| Authority Deference | The loudest voice dominates by role, not evidence. Domain-bounded credibility contextualises expertise. |
| False Certainty | “I don’t know yet” is treated as a valid, rewarded state. Prevents premature commitment. |
3.2 The 20-60-20 Diagnostic
Every board has Adventurers (20%), Adopters (60%), and Abstainers (20%). ALEXIS identifies which directors fall into each category for this specific decision—not generally. A director who is an Adventurer on acquisitions may be an Abstainer on technology.
Concentrate on helping the Adventurers articulate their vision and evidence. The Adopters follow if the Adventurers make a compelling case. The Abstainers should see the evidence shift, and get on board or formally register dissent. This is not manipulation; it is understanding how groups actually make decisions.
3.3 Personalised Briefings
ALEXIS generates tailored materials calibrated to each director’s expertise. Everyone receives the same decision space map, but the supporting context is personalised to their domain of strength.
PHASE 4: THE STRATEGY SESSION
4.1 Opening Protocol
The session opens with the decision space map, not a management presentation. The board sees the bounds, the angles, and the trajectory. This reframes the conversation from “should we do this?” to “what decision space do we actually have, and what are we willing to trade off?”
4.2 Scenario Exploration
ALEXIS presents three to four scenarios representing genuinely different strategic positions with different trade-off profiles. These are not “good, better, best” options.
Example: AI Strategy Scenarios
Cautious Enabler: Targeted deployment in low-risk, high-value areas. Preserves workforce trust. Gentle trajectory turn. Strategic Accelerator: Ambitious programme with significant transformation investment. Higher risk, higher return. Moderate turn. Platform Transformer: Core business model shift. Sharp trajectory turn. Requires sustained multi-year commitment. Watchful Responder: Minimal investment. Monitor competitors. Preserve optionality. Risk of falling behind at tipping point.
4.3 Structured Dissent
PreEmpt.Life’s Productive Dissent governance pillar requires formal challenge through three protocols.
First, the Sparring Partner: the strongest counter-argument to the board’s emerging preference, surfacing what the preferred option leaves unexamined.
Second, the Red Team: what would a competitor, regulator, or activist group say? How would a hostile actor exploit the vulnerabilities?
Third, the Pre-mortem: it is two years from now and this strategy has failed. What went wrong? The patterns in failure narratives reveal the actual risks—often different from those formally identified.
4.4 Durable Power Assessment
ALEXIS assesses four layers traditional analysis ignores: Asymmetry (what advantages?), Coherence (do elements reinforce each other?), Geometry (how do stakeholders perceive this?), and Identity (does this align with who the organisation is?).
The critical insight: when enforcement intensity rises while explanation falls—when the organisation imposes change rather than carrying people with it—that is an early warning of systemic collapse, visible two to five years before formal metrics detect the problem.