Strategic Failure Begins
in the Assumptions
Validity audits the logic inside strategy documents before decisions are made—exposing fragile assumptions, causal overreach, and underestimated downside.
Validity does not generate strategy or recommend actions. It evaluates whether strategic conclusions are logically supported by the evidence and assumptions presented.
Most Strategic Errors Are Reasoning Errors
Before a strategy fails in execution or collapses under pressure, the weaknesses usually exist in the original analysis.
- Assumptions about markets, competitors, or behaviour treated as facts
- Growth or impact projections built on layered, untested premises
- Causal links asserted without supporting mechanisms
- Downside scenarios acknowledged but structurally discounted
- Narrative coherence prioritised over analytical integrity
These are not execution failures. They are reasoning failures. Validity is designed to surface them before commitments are made.
A Logic Audit for Strategic Decisions
Validity analyses strategy decks, investment theses, business cases, and board papers to evaluate:
- Whether strategic conclusions follow from the underlying analysis
- Where causal claims lack credible mechanisms or precedent
- How sensitive outcomes are to key assumptions
- Whether downside risk is fully integrated or marginalised
- Where narrative framing substitutes for analytical support
It does not propose strategy. It does not assess market attractiveness. It evaluates whether the reasoning behind the strategy holds under scrutiny.
Before Commitment. Before Capital. Before Consequences.
Validity is used at three critical points:
1. Pre-Decision Review
Stress-test the internal logic of strategic proposals before executive or board approval.
2. External Strategy Audit
Evaluate consultant decks, investment theses, or partner proposals for logical gaps and assumption risk.
3. Post-Decision Re-Evaluation
Re-examine strategic reasoning as conditions change or results diverge from expectations.
What It Detects
Validity flags reasoning patterns commonly associated with strategic failure:
Assumption Stacking
Multiple interdependent assumptions required for success, none of which are independently validated.
Causal Overreach
Strategic outcomes asserted without mechanisms linking action to result.
Downside Minimisation
Risks acknowledged narratively but excluded from core decision logic.
Base-Rate Neglect
Historical failure rates or comparable outcomes ignored in projections.
Narrative Substitution
Compelling stories used to mask analytical gaps or uncertainty.
Sample Output
Illustrative example of a Validity strategic audit
Assumption Stacking
Projected growth depends on simultaneous success across adoption, pricing, and retention without independent validation.
Causal Overreach
The strategy assumes market leadership will follow scale without identifying mechanisms that confer durable advantage.
Downside Minimisation
Competitive response and margin compression risks are acknowledged but excluded from decision-critical analysis.
It Improves Decision Quality Under Uncertainty
Strategy teams use Validity to:
- Surface hidden assumption load before capital is committed
- Identify where confidence exceeds evidentiary support
- Stress-test strategic narratives against logical failure modes
- Create defensible decision records for boards and stakeholders
Validity does not choose your strategy. It ensures the reasoning behind it can survive contact with reality.