SUCCESs checklist
Review a message through six lenses: Simple, Unexpected, Concrete, Credible, Emotional, and Stories.
Use the Heath brothers’ SUCCESs principles to review a proposal, explanation, or campaign message. Identify the main point, examine weak areas, and improve the evidence and presentation. Treat this as a qualitative review rather than a communication score.
A message, its audience, supporting evidence, and the action you want readers or listeners to consider.
A revised core message, evidence gaps, and an audience-understanding check.
On this page
How to use it
- Choose the message and audience.
- Review it against all six principles.
- Identify unclear wording, missing evidence, and weak audience relevance.
- Revise the message and ask listeners to explain its main point.
Keep its limits in mind
Memorable wording does not establish truth, persuasion, or business results. Unexpected claims and stories still need an honest basis. Do not invent an experience or numerical score to complete the checklist.
Making a process improvement proposal clearer
Fictional example: Xinggang’s 18-page proposal for one request intake point is aimed at six department heads. The exercise supplies 12 requests missed in chat over the past month; these are fictional records, not real organizational evidence.
On a small screen, scroll across the diagram to read it.
Draft output: Prepare a three-minute proposal explaining the problem, a proposed pilot, and the support requested. This does not mean the pilot is approved.
Understanding check: Ask two colleagues to retell the main point, then revise misunderstandings. No audience response or improvement is reported.
Next step: Check whether listeners understand the request and the evidence, then refine the draft.
Three ways a memorable message can become misleading
First, pause if simplifying the message removes the condition on which it depends. One clear point can still retain a limited scope, an uncertain cause, or an approval requirement. The goal is a message an audience can accurately understand, not the shortest sentence regardless of what it leaves out.
Second, stop when surprise turns into an unsupported reversal. “The problem is not staffing” sounds striking but needs evidence that rules out staffing. A more honest opening can make the tension visible without deciding the cause. Emotional relevance should explain why people care; it should not rely on fear, blame, or fabricated personal experience.
Third, do not score truth or impact by counting principles. SUCCESs contains six qualitative lenses, not a validated point scale. A vivid story can be false, and a factual explanation can still be misunderstood. Keep evidence quality, audience comprehension, agreement, and later operational outcomes as separate questions.
Choose message review, reasoning structure, or a decision request
Use SUCCESs to examine how an existing message is expressed. The six principles are Simple, Unexpected, Concrete, Credible, Emotional, and Stories. This worksheet uses qualitative checks and does not calculate a communication score. Other methods answer different preparation questions.
| Current material and question | Method | Output and boundary |
|---|---|---|
| A message needs clearer and more memorable expression | SUCCESs checklist | Revisions and evidence gaps; no guaranteed persuasion. |
| A short claim needs a reason and a relevant example | PREP | A structured explanation; the example still needs an honest basis. |
| A product response needs scope, resources, and approval | Product proposal | A bounded decision request; no automatic authorization. |
| A business gap lacks an agreed investigation boundary | Issue definition worksheet | A limited task; no proven causal explanation. |
Revise the request-intake proposal without rewriting its evidence
The complete fictional Xinggang packet is an 18-page proposal for one request intake point, intended for six department heads. It supplies 12 requests missed in chat during the past month and an explicitly fictional story of a colleague forwarding one request three times without a response. The exercise supplies no total request count, deduplication ledger, staffing investigation, approved pilot, or later audience feedback. The story is not a thirteenth missed request or evidence that every missed request was forwarded three times.
The weak message is effectively “we need another system.” A revised core point is that every request needs a place where people can find it. Keep the source of the concern visible: the count belongs to a fictional teaching exercise. In a real proposal, replace it with authorized, checked organizational records and the rules used to identify a missed request. Twelve alone cannot establish a missed-request rate.
An original draft opening for this fictional exercise is: “In last month’s teaching records, twelve requests were missed in chat. We do not have a verified total or evidence that staffing can be ruled out. One fictional request was forwarded three times without a response; it illustrates the experience, rather than explaining all twelve cases. I propose agreeing a bounded test of one intake point, with ownership, access, workload, review criteria, and a pause decision defined first. Today’s request is to decide whether and under what conditions to test it, rather than approve a broad rollout.” This is draft content for the proposed three-minute presentation, not a timed performance.
| Lens | Revision choice | Condition that stays visible |
|---|---|---|
| Simple | One findable place for each request | Scope and the requested test decision are retained. |
| Unexpected | Question repeated searching as well as staffing | Staffing has not been ruled out. |
| Concrete | Show one request moving through chat | The example is fictional and not representative of all twelve. |
| Credible | Explain the twelve-record count and gaps | No total denominator or underlying verified ledger is supplied. |
| Emotional | Explain waiting and repeated chasing | Benefits are expected, not measured savings. |
| Stories | Use the three-forward example as an illustration | No invented employee testimony or causal claim. |
Check understanding before interpreting agreement
The proposed next step is to ask two colleagues to retell the main point, supporting evidence, and requested decision without coaching. Record their actual words and questions, not an assumed positive reaction. Define what an adequate retelling must preserve, especially that the cause is uncertain and the pilot is not approved. These two colleagues are a rehearsal group, not the six department heads or a representative audience study.
If listeners remember only “another system,” revise the core point and the connection to the task. If they recall the story but treat it as measured proof about all requests, strengthen the evidence boundary. Time the actual revised presentation against the three-minute intention, keeping necessary conditions instead of deleting them to meet the clock. No timing measurement is supplied in the case.
At the decision meeting, distinguish whether the audience understood, agreed, requested more evidence, or actually authorized a bounded pilot. Record the response and scope. A clear presentation could reasonably lead to a decision to investigate first. Any claim about fewer missed requests needs a separate trial with counting rules, exposure, observation time, and actual results. None of those outcomes follows from completing six checklist entries.
Check your work
- The main point is clear without hiding essential conditions.
- Concrete details and evidence are traceable.
- Audience relevance does not depend on exaggerated claims.
- Fictional stories are labeled, and listener feedback has not been presumed.
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.