Three exec summaries I rewrote this week, part 10
The monthly exec-summary teardown, continuing. Three real openings rewritten this week. What was wrong, what I changed, and the rule each rewrite reinforced.
Tenth installment. Same format. Three openings I rewrote this week, anonymized, with the rule each rewrite reinforced.
One
Before.
In today’s complex regulatory environment, organizations need a partner who can deliver compliance, security, and operational excellence at scale. We are uniquely positioned to be that partner.
After.
You’re consolidating four GRC platforms into one before your December audit. We’ve delivered that consolidation for nine other public companies in the last 18 months. Two of them are listed in Section 4.2.
The rule. The opening is not where you describe yourself. It’s where you describe the buyer’s specific situation back to them in their words. If the first two sentences could be pasted into another vendor’s proposal without editing, they’re not earning the page.
Two
Before.
Our solution combines AI-powered automation with deep industry expertise to deliver measurable results across the entire customer lifecycle.
After.
We took your six-week onboarding to four weeks at the two reference customers in Section 4. The mechanism is documented in Section 6.3 — three integration patterns that absorb the work your CSMs do today.
The rule. “Measurable results” is the phrase you write when you don’t have any. If you have measurable results, write the number. If you don’t, don’t claim measurable results.
Three
Before.
We are excited to respond to this RFP and look forward to the opportunity to demonstrate why our team is the right choice for your organization.
After.
Cut entirely. The exec summary now starts with the second paragraph.
The rule. Procurement readers don’t care that you’re excited. They care that you understood the brief. If your first sentence is about your feelings, you’ve spent the most valuable real estate in the document on the wrong thing.
The pattern across all three
Every “before” version was generic. Every “after” version was specific to the bid in front of the reader. That’s the entire move. Most exec-summary failures are not failures of writing skill — they’re failures of substitution. The writer pasted the previous bid’s opening into the new bid because the previous bid’s opening sounded like a real exec summary. It wasn’t, in the previous bid either. It just survived to be reused.
The fix isn’t to write better. It’s to refuse to start with a sentence that could be moved between bids. If the first paragraph would work for any of your last five proposals, it isn’t an exec summary — it’s a header.
What I tell writers
Start with a sentence about the buyer’s situation this quarter. Then a sentence about what you’ve delivered for someone in their situation. Then a sentence about where in the response to find the proof. That’s the structure. Three sentences. The buyer reads further or doesn’t, and either way you’ve earned the second paragraph.
The next batch lands in March. If you’ve got an opening you’d like rewritten anonymously, the proposal team mailbox is open.