Public documentation for governed AI labor
SDKs/Governance/Connectors
Arx / Docs / Partner brief variants — index & usage

Documentation

Partner brief variants — index & usage

Project-Agent / partners/variants/README.md

Project-Agent repo-root partners/variants/README.md

Four firm-tuned versions of the master consulting-partner brief. Each is a complete standalone document — a partner reads one, not master + overlay. The variants share ~80% of their text with the master at ../consulting-partner-brief.md; the tuned ~20% is in five places: header, boardroom-problem framing (§1), economic table (§4), why-now (§6), and one firm-specific FAQ in the appendix.

Files

| File | Target | Address tier | Tuned for | |---|---|---|---| | mckinsey-ope.md | McKinsey & Company · Operations Practice / QuantumBlack | Senior Partner | Strategy-firm dynamics; QuantumBlack as the AI build arm; addresses McKinsey's typical hand-off-to-SI pattern | | bcg-platinion.md | Boston Consulting Group · BCG X / BCG Platinion | Managing Director & Partner | Build-led firm; engineering-substantive language; addresses the "BCG Platinion engineers will read the code" expectation | | deloitte-aid.md | Deloitte Consulting · AI & Data / Deloitte AI Institute | Principal | Largest delivery practice; addresses audit-independence rules upfront (Deloitte audits ~25% of F500 — pilot prospect must be non-audit-client) | | accenture-techstrategy.md | Accenture · Technology Strategy / Accenture Song / GenAI Practice | Senior Managing Director | Largest SI; $5B+ GenAI bookings; addresses hyperscaler-alliance posture (ARX is alliance-neutral, not alliance-competing) |

Usage

  1. Pick the variant matching the recipient's firm.
  2. Replace the placeholders before sending:
  • [Senior Partner name] / [Managing Director & Partner name] / [Principal name] / [Senior Managing Director name]
  • [Customer] (the candidate prospect you'll discuss in §3 and §7)
  1. Optional: add a personalized opening line before the TL;DR block (one sentence referencing a recent piece of the partner's published work or a mutual contact). Keep the body untouched — the structure is deliberate.
  2. Send as PDF (export from your editor of choice) or as a markdown attachment if the partner prefers it. PDF is the safer default for a senior-partner audience.

Pre-send checklist

  • [ ] Placeholder names replaced
  • [ ] Pilot-prospect candidate ([Customer]) is real and they have an active AI-workforce conversation underway
  • [ ] For Deloitte: pilot prospect has been pre-screened against Deloitte's audit-client database (the appendix calls this out — don't surface it as a problem in the conversation, surface it as a process you've already accounted for)
  • [ ] The technical-maturity FAQ is current as of send date — re-check docs/compliance/aiuc-1-readiness.md for any status changes since this template was written (May 2026)
  • [ ] You've reviewed economic-model-assumptions.md and can defend each numeric range when challenged
  • [ ] You have a 90-second screen recording of Engagement Canvas → Preview-as-board ready to send as a follow-up if the partner asks for a visual
  • [ ] Your calendar is open in the Mon/Wed/Fri slots referenced in §7

What's in scope vs. out of scope

These variants are send-to-partner artifacts. They are not internal positioning documents.

Out of scope here (lives elsewhere):

  • The full technical evaluation of the platform thesis: control-plane-evaluation/ (especially 07-synthesis.md and 06-disqualifying-risks.md for the honest-bear case to use in your own internal pre-call prep)
  • The build sequence the partner will eventually want to see under NDA: control-plane-evaluation/05-build-sequence.md
  • The economic-model sourcing the partner's CFO will pressure-test in the technical follow-up: ../economic-model-assumptions.md

What to do after the first call

If the partner says yes to a 90-day pilot in the first call: move to the co-sell-agreement template (not yet written — Sprint 0b deliverable).

If the partner says "send a follow-up": send the 90-second demo video + the economic-model assumptions sidecar + a one-page reference architecture diagram (the latter two are referenced but the diagram is also a Sprint 0b deliverable).

If the partner says no: the most useful response is to ask which of the four objections (governance / audit / kill switch / channel-economics) was the one that didn't land, and revise the brief accordingly. The brief is a living artifact; we expect to iterate on it through the first 5–10 partner conversations.