Good answers rarely come from brilliance alone — they come from a disciplined way of working. These are the four moves I make on every case, and the questions that keep me honest.
Before any data, I pin down the real question, who has to make the decision, and what a good answer has to show.
I break the question into a MECE issue tree, then write down the hypotheses I'd bet on — so the analysis has something to prove or kill.
I size, model and stress-test — but only the numbers that move the decision. Every chart has to earn a “so what”.
I lead with the answer, back it with the three strongest pieces of evidence, and say plainly what could go wrong and what to do next.
The reader should know my answer in one sentence, before the evidence.
No gaps, no overlaps — or the analysis will chase its own tail.
Go deep only where the answer is sensitive.
If a chart doesn't change the decision, it doesn't make the deck.
A recommendation without its risks is only half an answer.
I'm open to internships and case collaborations.