I use the "pyramid format". Conclusion first. Main points with little explanation next. Explanation of main points after that. Details last. That way someone can stop reading at any point and still have a complete view at some level of detail.
Some people find that determining what the conclusion is, is difficult to begin with. Or that there are many conclusions. And, how do you present those details? Chronologically?
A helpful techniques I've picked up (that some people absolutely hate); write down the individual statements on post-it notes. That way you can reshuffle. What would the story look like if A is 'the conclusion'? What if we start off with B? What does it look like if we present the supporting evidence chronologically? What if we present it in a more layered way? ("the colonel couldn't have done it, as on the day of the murder, he was in another city")
Another tip is for the introduction, the lead up to the conclusion; start with listing the facts that are common knowledge, then the fact that raised the question to be answered; then you reach the conclusion. (E.g. Every week, grandma bakes a pie and leaves it to cool in the window. Last week was no exception. But when she went to retrieve the pie, it was half-eaten! The culprit was the cat!) This setting the scene can give the reader some context. In a real-world example, the known facts might include your company's strategy or objectives, underscoring why people should care about your advice.
This approach is also known as the "Minto Pyramid." The website "Untools" has a well-written webpage that explains this: https://untools.co/minto-pyramid/
Nice link, thanks! I was put on to this by someone who had done defence work in their past. They used the "Concept of Operations" for their preferred document style which I also like.
