Our practices for producing executive perspective content have shifted meaningfully, and the specific changes are worth naming.
We started requiring more rounds of substantive revision
Early executive pieces sometimes went through fewer revision rounds than we're now comfortable with. We've made multi-round revision, specifically pushing for concrete examples, a more standard part of the process.
We got more comfortable pushing back on safe generality
We're now more willing to ask contributors directly for a specific example behind a general claim, a practice that consistently produces stronger final pieces.
We started requiring at least one checkable, specific claim per piece
We increasingly push executive contributors toward including at least one specific, falsifiable claim or committed metric, since we've found this is what determines whether a piece ages well.
Why this evolution matters
We think executive perspective content's value depends almost entirely on genuine specificity rather than polished generality, and we've made real process changes to consistently push contributors in that direction.