PREP communication
Organize a short recommendation as Point, Reason, Example, Point, and finish with a clear request.
Use PREP when someone needs to understand your position and the decision you are asking for. Lead with one point, explain the reason, supply a relevant example, and return to the point with the next action. Keep each part focused on the same recommendation.
One recommendation, its supporting reason, a relevant fact or example with its context, and the decision or action requested.
An editable four-part speaking or writing outline with the main point, reason, example, and closing request.
On this page
How to use it
- State one main point and make its status clear: a proposal, a confirmed decision, or a reported result.
- Give the reason that supports that point. Explain the connection rather than listing unrelated benefits.
- Choose an example or fact that supports the reason. Preserve its source, sample, period, units, and limitations; if evidence is missing, say what needs checking.
- Restate the recommendation and name the requested action or decision. Include conditions and unresolved criteria without inventing approval.
- Read the outline aloud. Remove repetition that adds no meaning, and check that the example supports the same point you open and close with.
Keep its limits in mind
A clear argument is not proof that a recommendation is correct. One example may not represent the whole population. PREP does not verify evidence, grant approval, or replace a fuller analysis of alternatives and risks when those are needed.
Request a small pilot before a wider rollout
Fictional example. A Xinggang manager must explain why a request system should not launch company-wide immediately. Two departments cover the main workflow. A historical sample found that 8 of 20 requests needed additional materials; the sampling period is not supplied.
On a small screen, scroll across the diagram to read it.
Sample evidence: Eight divided by twenty is 40%. This describes the historical sample, not the outcome of the proposed pilot or a known company-wide rate.
A request with conditions: The closing asks for approval. It does not claim the pilot was approved or that success thresholds and wider rollout have been agreed.
Next step: Confirm approval and evaluation definitions and thresholds before starting the pilot, then review its results before deciding whether to expand.
Three reasons to pause before polishing the argument
Use PREP for a focused position that a listener can question and act on. Decide what you want the listener to consider before drafting the reason. Point, Reason, Example and the returning Point should stay about the same recommendation. Clear order makes the reasoning easier to inspect; it does not make the recommendation correct.
Pause when the requested decision keeps changing between the opening and closing. Pause when the example has a different population or outcome from the reason it supposedly supports. Pause when the evidence or risk needs more explanation than a short statement can preserve. In that situation, use PREP as an opening and provide the fuller material alongside it.
State uncertainty close to the evidence. A small historical sample can justify asking a question without establishing its cause. Do not remove a qualification merely to make a sentence sound confident, and do not turn “please approve” into “we will proceed” unless that approval actually exists.
Choose a short argument or a fuller decision package
The structure should fit what the listener needs to decide. A recommendation may be concise while its supporting records remain available. Keep the decision request, evidence and alternatives connected when moving between formats.
| Method | Starting material | Output |
|---|---|---|
| PREP | One position, a reason and relevant example | A focused argument and returning request |
| BLUF | The conclusion and essential supporting conditions | An opening that leads with the main point |
| Minto pyramid | A question and logically grouped support | A hierarchy to inspect the reasoning |
| Decision matrix | Feasible alternatives and justified criteria | A conditional comparison, not automatic approval |
Worked case: turn the historical sample into a bounded request
This continues fictional Xinggang’s request-system case. Two departments cover the main workflow. A historical sample contains 20 requests, eight needing additional materials; its sampling period and selection method are not supplied. Eight divided by twenty is 40% of that sample, not a measured company-wide rate and not the result of the proposed pilot.
The recommendation is a two-week pilot in the two departments before considering wider rollout. The reason concerns whether the new form is clear. The historical records make that question worth testing, but they do not prove unclear fields caused all eight returns. The proposed departments provide a limited workflow setting; they are not automatically representative of every department.
The table is a complete draft to speak or adapt in writing. It retains approval, definitions and thresholds as unresolved. It does not invent the resources needed for the pilot or assert a future reduction. The evidence and request therefore remain aligned without pretending that the evaluation has already happened.
| Part | Draft wording |
|---|---|
| Point | I propose a two-week pilot in two departments before we consider wider rollout. I am asking for approval of that bounded test, subject to the conditions below. |
| Reason | We need to learn whether the form is clear in the main workflow before extending it. These departments offer a limited setting for that question. |
| Example | Eight of twenty historical requests needed additional materials: 40% of this sample. The period is unknown, and this does not prove the new fields work. |
| Returning point | Please approve the limited pilot subject to agreeing definitions, thresholds, resources and review. Assess returns for information, form-filling time and user feedback before any expansion decision. |
Rehearse for meaning, then review the actual decision
The defensible conclusion is a request to test, not proof to roll out. Ask a listener to restate the proposed scope, why it is being considered, what the 40% describes and what is still unknown. If the listener hears a promise to launch everywhere after two weeks, revise the opening and closing to retain the review condition.
Before starting, confirm who can approve the pilot and agree eligibility, the event counted as a return for information, how repeat returns are counted, the timing method and how feedback will be collected. Thresholds are still unset in the case. If they are not agreed, record that status rather than deciding after seeing favorable results. Keep resource availability and participant agreement separate from the speech itself.
At review, append the listener’s questions, any corrected evidence and the decision actually made. Approval of a pilot is not approval of company-wide rollout. If the pilot occurs, retain complete observation windows, unresolved requests and feedback that contradicts the hypothesis. Prepare a new recommendation based on that material. The original PREP draft remains a traceable request; a persuasive delivery cannot substitute for the missing evaluation.
Check your work
- The opening contains one clear point and distinguishes a proposal from an approved plan.
- The reason explains why the point is worth considering.
- The example preserves its denominator and context; a sample observation is not presented as a universal rate or causal proof.
- The closing asks for a specific decision or action and retains any conditions.
- Unknown thresholds, owners, dates, and outcomes remain unknown; concise wording must not remove material uncertainty.
Framework references
References explain the framework and its scope; they do not validate the fictional example's results.
Put the framework to work
Copy the outline and add your question, evidence, and open questions.
Read a practical guide →Practice with an example
Choose a preparation route for progress, a resource or decision request, or a period review. Use one service case to inspect openings, review checks and focused guides, and keep a preparation note.
Prepare a work update: start with the purpose →