Antigravity Agent
f8b21af4be
10_Wiki/Topics 대규모 정리: - 오류 캡처/미완성 stub 문서 227개 제거 - 교차폴더 중복 43클러스터 병합 (63파일 → redirect) - 링크명 정규화: 깨진 링크 수정·redirect 직결·개념 매핑 ~2,400건 - 카테고리 MOC 6개 신규 생성 - Graph 섹션 미해결 related-keyword 링크 10,058건 제거 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
146 lines
4.3 KiB
Markdown
146 lines
4.3 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
id: wiki-2026-0508-pyramid-principle
|
|
title: Pyramid Principle
|
|
category: 10_Wiki/Topics
|
|
status: verified
|
|
canonical_id: self
|
|
aliases: [Minto Pyramid, SCQA, Top-down Communication]
|
|
duplicate_of: none
|
|
source_trust_level: A
|
|
confidence_score: 0.9
|
|
verification_status: applied
|
|
tags: [communication, writing, consulting, structure]
|
|
raw_sources: []
|
|
last_reinforced: 2026-05-10
|
|
github_commit: pending
|
|
tech_stack:
|
|
language: english-korean
|
|
framework: structured-writing
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Pyramid Principle
|
|
|
|
## 매 한 줄
|
|
> **"매 conclusion first, supporting reasons next, evidence last"**. Barbara Minto 의 McKinsey (1967) 의 develop 의 top-down structure 의 consulting/exec communication 의 standard. 매 reader 의 cognitive load 의 minimize — main idea 의 immediately 의 deliver.
|
|
|
|
## 매 핵심
|
|
|
|
### 매 Three Rules
|
|
1. **Ideas at any level must summarize the ideas grouped below**.
|
|
2. **Ideas in each grouping must be the same kind** (MECE — Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive).
|
|
3. **Ideas in each grouping must be logically ordered** (time / structure / degree).
|
|
|
|
### 매 SCQA Intro Pattern
|
|
- **S**ituation: 매 reader 의 known fact.
|
|
- **C**omplication: 매 disrupt 의 event.
|
|
- **Q**uestion: 매 implicit question.
|
|
- **A**nswer: 매 thesis (= pyramid top).
|
|
|
|
### 매 응용
|
|
1. Exec memo — 매 1-page 의 BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front).
|
|
2. Consulting deck — 매 action title slide 의 each.
|
|
3. PR description — 매 "what / why / how" 의 top-down.
|
|
4. RFC docs — 매 abstract 의 conclusion-first.
|
|
|
|
## 💻 패턴
|
|
|
|
### Bad → Good (technical email)
|
|
```markdown
|
|
<!-- BAD: Bottom-up -->
|
|
We profiled the API. CPU was 80%. Then we added caching.
|
|
After caching, p99 dropped from 800ms to 120ms.
|
|
Therefore we should ship the cache to prod.
|
|
|
|
<!-- GOOD: Pyramid -->
|
|
**Recommend shipping Redis cache to prod (p99 800ms → 120ms).**
|
|
|
|
- Profiling showed 80% CPU on repeated DB reads.
|
|
- Cache hit ratio 92% in staging.
|
|
- No correctness regressions in 48h soak test.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### SCQA opener template
|
|
```markdown
|
|
**S**: Our checkout API serves 10k req/s.
|
|
**C**: Last week, p99 spiked to 2s during flash sale.
|
|
**Q**: How do we prevent recurrence?
|
|
**A**: Add request-coalescing cache + circuit breaker. Details below.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Action-title slide structure
|
|
```markdown
|
|
# [Slide title = the takeaway, not the topic]
|
|
|
|
# BAD: "Q3 Revenue Analysis"
|
|
# GOOD: "Q3 revenue grew 22% driven by enterprise tier"
|
|
|
|
- Bullet 1 (evidence)
|
|
- Bullet 2 (evidence)
|
|
- Bullet 3 (evidence)
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### PR description pyramid
|
|
```markdown
|
|
## TL;DR
|
|
Fix race in `OrderQueue` causing lost messages under high load.
|
|
|
|
## Why
|
|
- Reproduced 1/1000 message loss in load test.
|
|
- Root cause: missing mutex in `enqueue()`.
|
|
|
|
## How
|
|
- Added `sync.Mutex` (commit a1b2c3).
|
|
- New stress test (commit d4e5f6).
|
|
|
|
## Risk
|
|
Low — change is local; backward compatible.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### MECE grouping check
|
|
```python
|
|
# Pseudo: ensure subpoints partition the parent claim
|
|
parent = "User churn increased"
|
|
children = [
|
|
"Onboarding friction", # acquisition phase
|
|
"Feature gaps", # activation phase
|
|
"Pricing", # retention phase
|
|
]
|
|
# MECE: each is distinct phase, together cover funnel.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## 매 결정 기준
|
|
| 상황 | Use pyramid? |
|
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Exec / time-poor reader | Yes — BLUF |
|
|
| Persuasive memo | Yes — SCQA |
|
|
| Narrative storytelling | No — suspense matters |
|
|
| Tutorial / step-by-step | No — sequence matters |
|
|
| Research paper abstract | Yes — conclusion-first |
|
|
|
|
**기본값**: 매 business 의 technical writing 의 pyramid first.
|
|
|
|
## 🔗 Graph
|
|
- 변형: [[SCQA]] · [[MECE]]
|
|
- 응용: [[Technical-Writing]]
|
|
- Adjacent: [[Mental_Models|Mental-Models]] · [[Decision-Making]]
|
|
|
|
## 🤖 LLM 활용
|
|
**언제**: draft 의 restructure top-down, 매 generate exec summary.
|
|
**언제 X**: creative narrative — 매 pyramid 의 kill suspense.
|
|
|
|
## ❌ 안티패턴
|
|
- **Buried lede**: 매 conclusion 의 last paragraph — exec 의 never reach.
|
|
- **Non-MECE buckets**: 매 overlap 의 reader confuse.
|
|
- **Topic title slides**: "Q3 Analysis" 의 X — "Q3 grew 22%" 의 O.
|
|
- **Pyramid 의 misuse 의 fiction**: 매 mystery 의 spoil.
|
|
|
|
## 🧪 검증 / 중복
|
|
- Verified (Minto, "The Pyramid Principle", 1987 / McKinsey internal training).
|
|
- 신뢰도 A.
|
|
|
|
## 🕓 Changelog
|
|
| 날짜 | 변경 |
|
|
|---|---|
|
|
| 2026-05-08 | Phase 1 |
|
|
| 2026-05-10 | Manual cleanup — Three rules + SCQA + before/after examples |
|