Consulting Written Case and Presentation Playbook

In a consulting written case, read the decision and required output before the exhibits. On the first data-pack pass, label each source by scope, date, unit, and reliability. Build a scratch table around the decision, not around document order. If sources conflict, test definitions and populations before choosing a value. Then write a recommendation with two evidence-backed reasons, the largest unresolved risk, and the next analysis. Convert that logic into a slide story only after the answer is stable. The complete example below is original practice and does not reproduce a named firm's assessment.

What is the first pass through a written case data pack?

Use three passes if the stated constraint allows it.

1. Decision pass: write the client question, decision criteria, output, and deadline.
2. Source pass: scan titles, dates, units, definitions, and obvious conflicts.
3. Answer pass: calculate only what changes the decision, then draft the recommendation before polishing slides.

How do I handle conflicting sources without inventing precision?

Check five differences: definition, population, period, unit, and method. If one source reports registered customers and another reports active customers, the numbers are not interchangeable. If one uses a calendar year and another a trailing twelve months, align the period before comparing.

Reconciling conflicting numbers is a math problem before it is a writing problem. Get the arithmetic instinct timed and automatic first.

Use a conditional sequence:

1. If definitions and scope match, investigate data quality or date differences.
2. If definitions differ, rename the metrics and use each only for its valid question.
3. If one source is clearly more relevant, explain why rather than silently discarding the other.
4. If the conflict cannot be resolved, preserve a range and show whether the decision changes at either bound.

What is a complete data-pack walkthrough?

Illustrative prompt. Northline Transit is considering an express commuter route. Recommend whether to launch a six-month pilot. The pack contains a commuter survey, operating estimate, and ridership report.

Objective. Decide whether the pilot can cover incremental operating cost and identify the largest evidence risk.

Source triage. The survey reports 2,400 respondents, of whom 30% say they would use the route weekly. A ridership report shows 18,000 active commuters in the corridor. A marketing slide calls the corridor a “25,000-customer market,” but its footnote includes occasional visitors. The operating estimate states €210,000 for six months. Average fare contribution after variable cost is €4 per one-way trip.

Scratch table. Use active commuters, not the broader marketing market, for a base case. Survey intent is not observed use, so test a conversion range.

Calculation. Base contribution is 2,700 × 2 × 26 × €4 = €561,600. Low-case contribution is 1,350 × 2 × 26 × €4 = €280,800. Both exceed the €210,000 incremental cost in this simplified pack.

Conflict resolution. Do not use the 25,000 figure because it includes occasional visitors and would inflate the weekly commuter base. Do not present 50% conversion as a fact. Label it as a scenario and show the low case.

Answer. Launch a six-month pilot because even the lower conversion scenario estimates €280,800 contribution against €210,000 incremental cost. The largest risk is that stated weekly intent overpredicts repeat ridership. Gate continued spending on observed weekly riders and repeat trips during the first month.

Sanity check. The low-case margin above incremental cost is €70,800. The answer should change if conversion falls below break-even. Break-even conversion is about €210,000 / (€561,600 / 50%), or 18.7% of stated intent under the other assumptions.

How should I approach Excel, econometrics, scientific, or technical tasks?

Use the role instructions. Do not assume a named firm currently uses a specific tool or test. Transferable execution still has four parts: define the question, make inputs and transformations auditable, test the result, and explain its decision impact.

For a spreadsheet, separate raw inputs, calculations, checks, and output. For econometrics, state the identification or inference limit. For a scientific case, distinguish supplied evidence from domain assumptions. For a technical panel, explain tradeoffs and failure modes rather than presenting an unexplained result.

How do I turn a timed written case into a clear slide story?

The Northline answer can become three slides:

1. Recommendation: Pilot the route because the low case covers incremental cost.
2. Economics: Base and low scenario bridge from active commuters to contribution.
3. Risk and gate: Observed repeat use determines whether the pilot continues.

Use message titles, not topic titles. “Low case covers pilot cost by €70.8k” is a message. “Financial analysis” is only a label.

Use the written-case checklist for the broader preparation sequence.

What belongs on the slide, and what belongs in the presentation?

The slide carries the message, essential evidence, unit, and source label. The talk track explains why the evidence matters, what assumption is conditional, and how the next slide follows. Do not hide an unsupported assumption in speaker notes.

Talk track: “I recommend a six-month pilot. Using active commuters rather than the broader marketing population, the low conversion scenario produces €280,800 contribution against €210,000 incremental cost. Because survey intent may not translate into repeat use, continuation should depend on observed weekly riders and trip frequency.”

How do I handle a same-day slide and live-presentation deadline?

Lock the answer before formatting. Reserve time for source labels, arithmetic checks, file naming, and submission. If the evidence is clean, move from decision to calculations to slides. If it conflicts, spend more of the analysis window on scope resolution and present a range rather than manufacturing one number.

Use only the tools and external sources allowed by the current instructions. A polished deck submitted through the wrong channel is not a complete output.

How should I approach a take-home case responsibly?

Follow authorship, collaboration, citation, confidentiality, and tool rules exactly. Keep a source log while researching. Separate supplied case facts from external evidence and your assumptions. Do not use restricted help or copy a public solution. If a rule is unclear, ask the named contact before submitting.

What should I expect from a case presentation Q&A?

Expect only what the invitation confirms, but prepare to defend the decision chain. For Northline:

Question: “Why did you ignore the 25,000 market figure?”

Response: “I did not ignore it. Its scope includes occasional visitors, while the decision model requires active commuters likely to travel weekly. I used 18,000 for the base and would show 25,000 as an upside scenario only if we could isolate comparable travel behavior.”

Question: “What would make you cancel the pilot?”

Response: “Observed repeat use below the break-even path after an agreed learning period, or service performance that reduces contribution below the modeled level.”

This answer names the evidence rule and the decision trigger instead of defending every assumption.

Sources

• Candidate invitation and current official task instructions for format, timing, software, source, and submission rules.
• Road to Offer, Consulting Assessment Center Guide, for cluster routing.
• Road to Offer, Written Case Interview Guide, for the existing broader written-case owner.
• All Northline materials on this page are original illustrative practice.