Source: frameworks/kit-client-email/qc-checklist-advisory-client-email.md

QC Checklist — Advisory Client Email

Run this checklist before sending. Every "No" requires a fix.

Strategic Value Check

The #1 failure mode is producing a well-voiced recap instead of strategic communication. Check this first.

[ ] Does this email advance the engagement, or does it just report what happened?
Advancing: surfaces a decision, frames a risk, sets up the next session with context, delivers the advisor's thinking.
Reporting: lists what was discussed, summarizes the session, confirms action items without context.
If it reads like a recap with better formatting, restructure around the strategic content.

[ ] Are decisions framed with both sides of the tradeoff?
"Too much routing and Pooja looks like she can't do her job; too little and she's in advisory territory without the expertise" = both sides.
"We should discuss how to handle the handoff" = neither side.

[ ] Are concerns stated directly with consequences, not hedged?
Direct: "The bookkeepers still haven't seen the actual SOP. They've been working from summarized Slack messages."
Hedged: "One thing to keep in mind is that the bookkeepers may not have had a chance to review the SOP yet."

[ ] Does the client know what to do and why before the next session?
They know what to review, what decisions to think about, and what context they need.

Structure Check

[ ] Is the structure driven by this email's communication need, not a template?
Compare to the three golden examples — they use three different structures. If this email looks like a fill-in-the-blank version of one of them, something is wrong.

[ ] Does the opening state the purpose of the email in 1-3 sentences?
Not a summary of the session. Not a preview of every section. Just: here's what this email is and why you're getting it.

[ ] Is strategic analysis structured around decisions and consequences, not around session topics?
The 2/23 COGS analysis works because it's organized around the problem and the solution path, not around "what we discussed in the meeting."

[ ] Are action items contextualized, not bare bullets?
Each item should be specific enough to act on and include why it matters or what it unblocks.

[ ] Is the email structured so the client can skim the bolded headers and know what's in each section?
If someone reads only the bold text, they should understand the email's arc.

[ ] Does the section order follow updates → agenda → open items → attachments → close?
Agenda before open items and attachments. The reader needs to know what's next before they see what's pending.

Formatting Check

The #2 failure mode (after "recap disguised as strategy") is correct content in dense, unscannable paragraphs.

[ ] One idea per paragraph?
Read each paragraph. If it covers two topics, it needs to be split. The client reads this on a phone between meetings.

[ ] Asks and questions bulleted, not buried?
Every section with a question or ask for the client should follow the pattern: context as standalone paragraph → bullet list of asks.
If a question is buried mid-paragraph, pull it out into a bullet.

[ ] No dense blocks?
Any paragraph longer than 3-4 lines should be checked. Can it be broken into separate paragraphs or context + bullets?

[ ] Is anything being previewed that the agenda or attachment list already covers?
If the agenda says "Build 3 review: Communication spec walkthrough, decision trees, 8 open items," don't also itemize what the spec contains in the body.
The attachment list describes the document. The agenda says when you'll discuss it. That's enough.
Discussion items belong in the session, not the email.

Voice Check

[ ] Read the opening out loud. Does it sound like a peer talking to a business owner, or like a consultant presenting findings?
Peer: "Quick update from my session with Pooja today, plus what I need from you for Monday."
Consultant: "Following our session today, I wanted to share some observations and recommendations for your consideration."

[ ] Is there any coaching language? ("That's the behavior we want to see," "I'm proud of how she handled that," "That shows real growth")
This is a peer-to-peer advisory email. The client draws their own conclusions about people's behavior.

[ ] Are interactions reported, not framed?
Reported: "I showed her the templates" / "she understands that the SOP needs to be shared"
Framed: "I previewed the templates" / "she understands now that the SOP needs to be shared"
"Showed" is what happened. "Previewed" implies intent. "Understands that" reports a state. "Understands now" narrates progress. Stay true to the interaction.

[ ] Are needs stated directly, not as suggestions?
Direct: "I need to know before Monday so I can plan Build 3's implementation sequence."
Suggestion: "It would be helpful to clarify this before our next session if possible."

[ ] Exclamation point count: 0-2 in the entire email?
The golden examples use 0-1. More than 2 signals enthusiasm-padding.

Asset Completeness Check

[ ] Does the email include every document the client needs for the next session?
New documents AND previously sent documents that remain relevant.

[ ] Are new attachments numbered and described?
Number, name, one-line description of what it is and what you need (review, approval, feedback).

[ ] Are previously sent assets resurfaced if the client still needs them?
"Resending for easy reference" or "same version from 2/19."
If the next session references a spec the client received two weeks ago, re-attach it.

[ ] Could the client walk into the next session fully prepared using only this email and its attachments?
If no, what's missing? Add it.

Content Check

[ ] Every action item is specific enough to act on without re-reading anything else?
"Bookkeeper-to-client assignment table with tiers" = clear. "Send me that thing we discussed" = not.

[ ] Dates are accurate and explicitly stated where applicable?
"Monday (Mar 2)" / "Due: February 24" — not assumed dates.

[ ] Attachment list matches actual attachments?
Every attachment mentioned is attached. Every attachment attached is mentioned.

[ ] Facts match the session recap and prior emails?
Names, build numbers, document versions, decisions already made — cross-check against source material.

[ ] All names verified against the reference data file?
Transcripts produce artifacts: "Christian" for Krisha, "Sarai" for Sariah, "Financial Sense" for Financial Cents. Every name in the email must match the reference data file, not the transcript.

[ ] Outstanding items carry forward from the correct prior session with source noted?
Don't drop items that are still open. Don't carry forward items that are resolved.

Comparison Check

[ ] Pull up the prior advisory email. Does this one match the quality and specificity of analysis?
The 2/23 COGS analysis is the bar. If this email has a strategic section, is it as specific and actionable?

[ ] Is this the right email type?
Session update, strategic analysis, decision request, coachee report — or a combination. If you can't name the type, the email may lack focus.

[ ] Is the analysis as concrete as the golden examples?
The golden examples name specific people, specific tools, specific processes, specific consequences. If this email uses generic language where a golden example would use specifics, tighten it.

AI Tell Scan

Read the full email and flag any of these patterns. If you find one, rewrite that section.

[ ] No hedged concerns ("One thing to keep in mind..." / "It might be worth considering..." / "Something to think about...")
[ ] No filler transitions ("On another note..." / "Shifting gears..." / "I also wanted to mention...")
[ ] No over-explained action items (the action item itself should be self-contained, not followed by a paragraph of justification)
[ ] No stacked adjectives ("really great progress on the important and meaningful work")
[ ] No generic observations (any sentence that works for any client without modification)
[ ] No "That's exactly..." constructions ("That's exactly the kind of..." / "That's exactly what we...")
[ ] No behavior narration ("That's the behavior we want to see" / "which tells me..." / "what that shows is...")
[ ] No coaching closings ("You're building real momentum" / "Keep up the great work")

Ship Criteria

Ship when:

Strategic Value Check passes — the email advances, not just reports
The client has everything they need for the next session (assets, context, decisions to consider)
Voice reads as peer-to-peer advisory, not consultant or coach
Zero AI tells identified
A stranger reading this would think a senior advisor wrote it

Don't ship when:

The email reads like a recap with advisory language sprinkled in
Concerns are hedged or consequences are unstated
The client would need to search old emails for a document referenced in this email
You can identify 2+ AI tells
The strategic analysis is less specific than the golden examples
Action items require re-reading the session recap to understand
Dense paragraphs bury questions or asks that should be bulleted
The body previews content that the agenda or attachment list already covers