Why I read the appendices first

There is an inversion in my reading habit that I should explain. When a board paper arrives, I start at the back. I read the appendices first, then the recommendation page, then the body, then the executive summary at the very end. I would not recommend this for everyone. I would recommend it for any director who has been on the receiving end of a surprise.

The reason is mechanical. Executive summaries are written by people who know what they want the reader to conclude. The body of the paper is written by people who know what they want the reader to understand. The appendices are usually written by analysts who were asked for a number and gave it. The first two are advocacy. The third is closer to evidence.

This is not a complaint about how board papers are written. Advocacy is part of the job of an executive. A chief executive who cannot make a clear recommendation should not be writing the paper. The question is what the rest of the room does with the recommendation, and the rest of the room has a different job.

In practice, the appendix that is most worth reading is the one that the body of the paper does not refer to. Tables that sit at the back without commentary often contain the data the management team did not want to draw attention to. That is not a sign of bad faith. It is a sign of compression. There is not enough space in a board paper to explain everything, and the things that get demoted to a back table are the things the writer thinks the board already understands. Sometimes the board does. Sometimes it does not.

The second appendix I look for is the one with the regulator's actual letter or the auditor's actual finding. These documents are usually quoted in the body in summarised form, and the summary is almost always milder than the original. Read the original. The difference between 'the regulator has noted some concerns' and the regulator's three-page letter, in its own words, is sometimes a different paper.

The third habit is checking the back page for anything labelled 'for noting only.' Items go in that category for two reasons. The first is that they really do not need a decision. The second is that someone hopes they will not get one. Both reasons are legitimate. Only the director can tell which is which.

I should add that this approach has limits. A board paper of nine appendices is a paper that has lost the thread. If I find myself starting with the back of a 200-page pack and never reaching the front, the right response is not better appendix-reading. It is a quiet conversation with the company secretary about whether the pack needs to be shorter. A board that cannot focus on the recommendation because the appendices have devoured the room is not actually being well served by the appendices.

I read the executive summary last because by the time I get to it, I know whether I agree with it. That is a slower way to prepare for a meeting. It also turns out to be the way I prepare best.