Template: Increase leadership scope. User-facing name: Step Up.
Status: draft. From ExecHQ: Content and Mapping (Kate, 12 October 2026). The source calls its action steps "proposed examples, not finalized coaching guidance", and so does this brief. Lines marked Proposed are Claude's, for Kate to confirm. Rules every plan shares are in plans/shared.md.
1. Plan card
| Intended user situation | A strong individual contributor or manager seeking promotion to a broader leadership role. |
| Desired outcome | A credible case for expanded scope, and a clear leadership narrative she uses in promotion and stakeholder conversations. |
| Common constraints | Limited time, sensitive internal politics, and incomplete external visibility. |
1.1 How people arrive here
- Direction answer: "I want to lead a larger marketing organization."
- Refinement answer: "My case for broader scope or promotion" under What are the areas you're seeking to build or enhance?
Proposed: when another plan fits better.
- A specific promotion or scope conversation is already set within about 30 days → Make the Move, which prepares for one moment.
- What she wants is to be known in her field more than a bigger role → Make Your Mark.
- She wants more weight where she is, without asking for a bigger role yet → Lead Where You Are.
- She is not sure the broader role is what she wants → Chart a New Course.
1.2 Stages and success signals
Success signals are qualitative and observable: things she has done or has, never a score.
| Stage | Success signal |
|---|---|
| 1. Clarify leadership proposition | She has a clear articulation of the scope she wants, a credible leadership proposition, a stated assessment of her current context, and an accepted initial roadmap. |
| 2. Build and make visible the evidence for broader scope | She has accumulated and recorded evidence of broader-scope work, strengthened her visibility in the channels that matter, and completed plan actions that show readiness. |
| 3. Prepare for and advance the scope conversation | She has prepared for or held consequential conversations, recorded the outcomes and feedback, and has a clear next decision, commitment or adjustment to the plan. |
2. Action playbook
Each stage's action steps, with the conditions that make each one appropriate. The agent recommends the step whose trigger matches her situation now. A trigger can bring a later stage's step forward: a scope conversation that is already scheduled calls for 3.1 straight away.
The Tool and Follow-up lines are Proposed: the source does not name them.
Stage 1: Clarify leadership proposition
1.1 Write a one-sentence statement of the scope she wants to lead and why she is ready
| Horizon | Short-term |
| Trigger | She chose broader scope or promotion as her main need, or she can't yet say what scope she wants next. |
| Done when | She saves an editable statement and confirms it reflects the scope she wants to pursue. |
| Evidence ExecHQ keeps | The saved direction statement, its edit history, her confirmation. |
| Plan area and signal | Plan area: leadership proposition. Signals: published content and LinkedIn are prepared as future expressions of the proposition. |
| Tool | Positioning Builder. In the prototype, onboarding's one-sentence positioning statement is the first version. |
| Follow-up | None: confirming the statement completes it. |
1.2 Add three examples of work that show enterprise-level judgment, cross-functional influence or broader leadership potential
| Horizon | Short-term |
| Trigger | Her direction is clear, but her evidence is too general to support a credible narrative. |
| Done when | She records three examples and names the outcome, the stakeholders and her role in each. |
| Evidence ExecHQ keeps | The examples she entered, the artifact inputs, a completion timestamp. |
| Plan area and signal | Plan area: evidence inventory. Signals: creates source material for LinkedIn, speaking, podcasts, press and published content. |
| Tool | Positioning Builder, building out the statement with her wins. |
| Follow-up | None. |
Stage 2: Build and make visible the evidence for broader scope
2.1 Choose one relevant visibility channel and create a credible proof-of-value artifact or activity
For example: publish a targeted piece, submit a speaking proposal, or send a tailored pitch.
| Horizon | Medium-term (30 to 60 days) |
| Trigger | She has a defined proposition and initial examples, but little visible proof in the channel that matters most. |
| Done when | She completes the action and marks the artifact used, sent, delivered or published. |
| Evidence ExecHQ keeps | The artifact's lifecycle state, the channel she reports, an optional outcome update, the draft-to-final artifact versions. |
| Plan area and signal | Plan area: visible evidence. Signal: set by the channel she chooses; the signal matrix sets the priority. Builds a reusable asset or an outreach record. |
| Tool | Thought Leadership Builder for a piece; Pitch Builder for a speaking proposal or pitch. |
| Follow-up | Once it is marked used or sent, the Loop asks what came of it. |
2.2 Develop a documented body of broader-scope evidence
Compile artifacts, stakeholder feedback, outcome summaries and supporting materials into a single evidence dossier.
| Horizon | Long-term (a quarter or longer) |
| Trigger | She is building up evidence across short- and medium-term actions and needs a durable, exportable case for expanded scope. |
| Done when | The dossier is assembled, dated, and exported or saved as a versioned artifact, and she can present it in a conversation or include it in a promotion packet. |
| Evidence ExecHQ keeps | The compiled dossier files, version history, linked artifacts and outcome records, the export timestamp. |
| Plan area and signal | Plan area: evidence inventory and scope case. Signals: published content, LinkedIn updates, and speaking or press mentions, gathered together and referenced as supporting proof. |
| Tool | None in V1: no tool builds a dossier yet. |
| Follow-up | None. |
2.3 Complete a weekly Signal Background reflection on new leadership work, outcomes and upcoming moments
| Horizon | Short-term, recurring |
| Trigger | The plan needs current context to choose the next action step, or she hasn't updated her context recently. |
| Done when | She submits a reflection with at least one update, or says plainly that nothing material has changed. |
| Evidence ExecHQ keeps | The submitted reflection, her self-reported update, the date. |
| Plan area and signal | Plan area: current context. Signals: keeps all six signal interpretations current. It is not itself external presence activity. |
| Tool | None: it is a short check-in. |
| Follow-up | None. |
Stage 3: Prepare for and advance the scope conversation
3.1 Prepare for a named promotion, performance, staffing or scope conversation
| Horizon | Short-term |
| Trigger | A consequential internal conversation is scheduled, or is identified as the next decision point. |
| Done when | She records the objective, the outcome she wants, the stakeholders and her key proof points, and marks the preparation complete. |
| Evidence ExecHQ keeps | The saved preparation artifact, the date she intends to use it, completion status. |
| Plan area and signal | Plan area: scope conversation. Signals: draws on the most relevant evidence gathered across the plan. |
| Tool | Situation Brief. |
| Follow-up | The day after the conversation date, the Loop asks how it went, which leads to 3.2. |
3.2 Record the outcome of the scope conversation and choose the next move
| Horizon | Short-term |
| Trigger | A prepared conversation has happened, or she reports a material decision or change. |
| Done when | She records the outcome, the feedback and the next decision, or commits to a revised action step. |
| Evidence ExecHQ keeps | The outcome update, the feedback, her next-step choice. |
| Plan area and signal | Plan area: plan adjustment. Signals: the outcome changes the emphasis and the evidence needed next. |
| Tool | None: it is answered in the Loop. |
| Follow-up | Her answer sets the next recommendation. |
3.3 Turn the evidence dossier and outcomes into a standing roadmap milestone
A prioritized set of longer-term actions that turn the dossier into promotion or role-change deliverables.
| Horizon | Long-term (a quarter or longer) |
| Trigger | She has a documented case and an outcome that calls for a multi-step advancement plan, such as a formal promotion packet or a cross-functional role proposal. |
| Done when | A roadmap milestone exists with its action steps, timelines and measurable completion criteria, linked to the dossier and outcome records. |
| Evidence ExecHQ keeps | The milestone record, linked action steps, timeline and ownership details, progress updates. |
| Plan area and signal | Plan area: roadmap and long-term scope advancement. Signals: uses gathered evidence and external mentions to justify the next moves she prioritizes. |
| Tool | None in V1. |
| Follow-up | Progress on the milestone's own steps. |
3. Feedback
Kate, 14 Oct. Which steps ask her for feedback, and of which type. The types and their answers are in plans/shared.md, section 6. Proposed, all of the table: the source names no feedback.
| Step | Asks? | Type | When ExecHQ asks | What her answer changes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 One-sentence statement of the scope she wants | Yes | Is this right? | As soon as the statement is drafted | "Yes, that's it" completes the step and every tool draws on it; "Change it" reopens Positioning Builder |
| 1.2 Three examples of broader leadership | No | None | Recording the three is done | |
| Stage 1 ends | Yes | Stage check-in | When 1.1 and 1.2 are done | Yes: Stage 2 as planned. Partly or Not yet: Stage 2 opens with a step at the gap (often a sharper statement or a stronger example) |
| 2.1 One proof-of-value artifact in one channel | Yes | What came of it? | The builder's check-back days after it is used, sent or published (a pitch 5, a post 7) | It went well: the result goes into her evidence for 2.2. Mixed or Not the way I hoped: another channel or a different angle. Nothing yet: the pitch's follow-up |
| 2.2 A documented body of broader-scope evidence | Yes | Progress check | Every 4 weeks while it is open | Slipped: one smaller step to add to it. Done: offers 3.1 when a conversation is coming |
| 2.3 Weekly Signal Background reflection | Yes | Anything new? | Weekly | Something new: a scope conversation coming brings 3.1 forward; new work becomes an example. Nothing has changed: the plan goes on as it is |
| Stage 2 ends | Yes | Stage check-in | When 2.1 and 2.2 are done | Partly or Not yet: one more visible proof before the conversation. Stuck or Less sure: Stage 3 starts with one step, and offers talking it through |
| 3.1 Prepare for the named conversation | Yes | How did it go? | The day after the conversation's date | Leads straight to 3.2. It hasn't happened yet: asks again after the new date |
| 3.2 Record the outcome and choose the next move | Yes | How did it go? (continued) | Straight after 3.1's answer | Her outcome sets the next recommendation: a yes leads to 3.3; a not yet leads to the evidence the decider asked for; a no offers Make the Move or Chart a New Course |
| 3.3 Standing roadmap milestone | Yes | Progress check | Every 4 weeks while it is open | Slipped: the milestone's next step gets smaller. Done: the plan is complete |
| Stage 3 ends | Yes | Stage check-in | When 3.1 and 3.2 are done | Yes: the plan is complete, or 3.3 continues it. Not yet: back to 2.1 for the evidence still missing |
4. Signal emphasis
Primary, Foundation and Evidence are defined in plans/shared.md. Internal only, never shown to her.
| Signal | Stage 1: Clarify leadership proposition | Stage 2: Build and make evidence visible | Stage 3: Advance the scope conversation | How it adds to leadership scope |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary: define or update the leadership narrative, role framing and proof points | Primary: show recent evidence, relevant work and a visible point of view | Primary: make sure the external profile supports the leadership case and the next conversations | Makes her leadership proposition and evidence accessible to internal and external stakeholders | |
| Press | Foundation: identify credible topics, perspectives and proof that could support a press angle | Primary: pursue or document selective third-party validation when it fits her direction | Evidence: use relevant mentions or coverage as supporting proof in broader-scope conversations | Adds third-party credibility to her leadership narrative |
| Speaking | Foundation: identify leadership topics and communication opportunities | Primary: prepare for or pursue relevant internal or external speaking moments | Evidence: carry demonstrated communication and audience response into scope conversations | Shows executive communication, authority, and the ability to represent the organization |
| Podcasts | Foundation: identify points of view suited to an interview format | Primary: pursue or prepare for selective conversations that build her external point of view | Evidence: use relevant appearances as proof of a credible market perspective | Builds depth and credibility around her point of view |
| Published content | Primary: articulate a point of view and turn expertise into reusable leadership language | Primary: publish or prepare targeted content that shows the desired scope | Evidence: use published thinking to reinforce the narrative in consequential conversations | Creates durable evidence of strategic thinking and leadership perspective |
| AI discoverability | Primary: establish a coherent, accurate public professional footprint that systems can interpret | Evidence: check whether new content and presence improve coherence and findability | Evidence: confirm her public professional picture supports the scope narrative | Shows whether her public professional footprint coheres around the leadership proposition |
5. How the agent behaves on Step Up
Proposed, all of this section. It adds to the rules every plan shares (plans/shared.md, section 5).
- The case, not the campaign. Every step serves one thing: a credible case for broader scope. Visibility work is recommended because it becomes evidence, never for its own sake.
- Careful with politics. Internal politics are a named constraint. It never suggests going around her manager or surprising the person who decides. It helps her choose who hears what, and when.
- Outcomes over activity. It asks for the result, the stakeholders and her role in each example, so her evidence reads as enterprise-level judgment rather than a list of tasks.
- The conversation decides the pace. A scope conversation on the calendar takes priority over everything else in the plan.
- No promise of the role. It helps her make the case well; it never says the case will win.
6. Open questions
- Stages. The V1 template table gave four stages (clarify the proposition; build evidence; have the scope conversations; establish the documented case). This brief uses the three from the plan card, by Kate's decision on 12 October. The prototype's onboarding and Plan page still show the older stage titles ("Say what you lead", "Show the proof", "Get in front of the deciders").
- User-facing stage names. Are the stage names above shown to her as written, or does each get a shorter name, as the plans did?
- Pace. The source gives no suggested period per stage. The prototype uses four weeks a stage, as a pace that moves with her, never a deadline.
- "Signal Background reflection". Is this the name she sees? The prototype's nearest thing is updating the Signal Picture.
- The dossier (2.2) and the roadmap milestone (3.3). Neither has a V1 tool or screen. Are they V1, or later?
- Tools and follow-ups. The Tool and Follow-up lines are proposed and need confirming.