Write a paper that supports a decision
For employees preparing papers for board and committee consideration.
Northstar Services is fictional. Its example shows how to put the requested decision first, then give readers the evidence, trade-offs, and action owner they need to assess it.
Build the paper in four parts
Each part answers a question the decision-maker needs resolved.
-
1
Decision requested
What exactly should the board or committee decide? State the proposed choice in one direct sentence and identify any boundary or condition.
-
2
Evidence
What material supports the decision? State the source, date, and scope. Separate observed facts from estimates and assumptions; identify information that is unavailable.
-
3
Options and risks
What credible alternatives were considered? For each, describe its principal benefit, trade-off, and material risk. Explain how a risk will be monitored or escalated only when that approach is known.
-
4
Recommended action
Which option is recommended, and why does it follow from the evidence and trade-offs? Name the responsible role and next review point when known.
Worked example: combine two reporting cycles
Fictional Northstar Services decision considered on 14 May 2026. Preparation figures are illustrative planning estimates per quarter, not measured results.
| Details | Option A: keep cycles | Option B: combine cycles |
|---|---|---|
| Estimated preparation effort | About 12 staff-days | About 8 staff-days |
| Main benefit | Keeps each committee's current reporting rhythm | Reduces duplicated preparation and aligns review dates |
| Main trade-off | Repeated work continues | Teams must coordinate a shared timetable |
| Key assumption | Current handoffs remain unchanged | Teams can meet the proposed timetable |
| Material risk | Figures may be reconciled at different times | A late input may delay both review packs |
Dated rationale and proposed action
Illustrative decision record — 14 May 2026
Request: Approve a six-month pilot of a combined quarterly reporting timetable for the two fictional committees, with a progress review after the second cycle.
Evidence and limits: Northstar's fictional planning estimate is 12 staff-days per quarter for separate preparation and 8 for a combined cycle. The estimates are based on a sample of recent preparation tasks, not audited time records. They do not establish that the combined timetable will work for every team.
Rationale: The combined option has the lower estimated preparation effort and creates one review timetable. Its principal risk is that a late team input could delay both packs. A time-limited pilot makes that coordination risk visible before a longer-term decision. Keep the assumptions beside the estimate so readers can judge how much weight to give it.
Recommended action: If approved, the fictional Reporting Programme Lead coordinates the timetable, records late inputs and their effects, and brings a short progress assessment after the second cycle. The committee retains the decision to continue, change, or stop the pilot.
Record: Prepared for consideration on 14 May 2026. This example is fictional and does not record an actual meeting or decision.
Check the paper before circulation
A reader should be able to find and verify each of these elements.
Decision is explicit
The requested decision, authority, and any boundary are stated directly rather than inferred from the recommendation.
Evidence is traceable
Sources, dates, and scope are stated; estimates and assumptions are labelled; decision-relevant gaps are identified.
Trade-offs are comparable
Each credible option has a benefit and material risk, including the consequence of taking no action where relevant.
Ownership is named
The recommended next action identifies a responsible role and a review or escalation point when known.
Get specialist guidance when needed
For submission-format or committee-routing questions, contact the relevant paper coordinator through your organization's established governance channel. For jurisdiction-specific, sensitive, or policy questions, seek guidance from Legal and Compliance or the designated domain owner before circulation. Follow the current approved guidance for the board, committee, role, and jurisdiction concerned; this example does not set those requirements.
If a source, estimate, or assumption cannot be verified, label it clearly and explain the limitation. Follow your organization's approved handling and escalation process for sensitive material.