A-Plus, C, and F Scenario Test
Stress-test a strategic decision across success, average, and failure outcomes
- Difficulty
- Easy
- Time to result
- ~days to results
- Steps
- 6
- Confidence
- 96%
The test frames a strategic decision through three distinct future states over an explicit time horizon. The A-plus scenario describes exceptional success and the mechanisms required to produce it, such as a new distribution channel or market unlock. The C scenario captures an ordinary outcome in which the decision works adequately but creates limited strategic transformation. The F scenario identifies capital destruction, product deterioration, customer rejection, or other failure mechanisms. Each scenario should include observable leading indicators so the decision can be monitored rather than judged only in hindsight. Comparing the outcome range with the capital committed and credible alternatives reveals whether the strategy offers an attractive balance of upside, base-case value, and downside risk.
Origin
Extracted from Acquired when the hosts graded Slack's public-company tenure and modeled its next five years inside Salesforce.
Core principles
- 01Define success and failure concretely before judging a strategy.
- 02Evaluate outcomes against the capital and alternatives involved.
- 03Include a realistic middle case rather than only extremes.
- 04Make the mechanism behind each scenario explicit.
How to run it
- 1
Define the decision and horizon
State exactly what action, investment, or acquisition is being evaluated and when results should be assessed.
Pro tip Choose a horizon long enough for the strategy's mechanism to operate.
Watch out An undefined horizon makes every outcome movable after the fact.
- 2
Build the A-plus scenario
Describe exceptional success, including the customer behavior, distribution effects, or product advantages required. Explain why the outcome would justify the resources committed.
Pro tip Identify a transformative mechanism rather than merely forecasting higher revenue.
Watch out Do not label an implausible fantasy as the upside case.
- 3
Build the C scenario
Describe a competent but unremarkable outcome. Estimate what value is preserved or created if the transformative thesis never materializes.
Pro tip Use the C case as the practical base case for capital-allocation comparisons.
Watch out Do not quietly make the middle case another success scenario.
- 4
Build the F scenario
Specify how the strategy destroys value, weakens the product, alienates customers, or forecloses better alternatives. Include both operational and strategic failure modes.
Pro tip Ask what could make the acquired asset less valuable than it was independently.
Watch out Avoid defining failure only as an external market shock.
- 5
Choose leading indicators
Assign measurable signals to each scenario, such as adoption, cross-selling, retention, product velocity, or customer migration. Review them on a fixed cadence.
Pro tip Favor indicators that diverge early between scenarios.
Watch out Lagging financial results may reveal failure too late to respond.
- 6
Compare alternatives
Evaluate the scenario range against other uses of capital and the option of doing nothing. Decide whether the expected strategic value compensates for the downside.
Pro tip Include opportunity cost explicitly.
Watch out A positive standalone outcome may still be inferior to a credible alternative.
In the wild
The A-plus case makes Salesforce the distribution center of a best-of-breed alternative to Microsoft. The C case primarily expands Slack through Salesforce's enterprise channel without transforming the software market. The F case sees product atrophy, failed integration, cross-selling damage, or startups moving to newer collaboration products.
→ The acquisition is evaluated as a range of strategic mechanisms rather than a single revenue forecast.
A company models an A-plus outcome where third-party developers create a thriving ecosystem, a C outcome where the platform supports only internal products, and an F outcome where complexity slows the core business. It assigns developer adoption, integration time, and core-product velocity as leading indicators.
→ Leadership gains clear thresholds for continued investment or retrenchment.
Common mistakes
Skipping the middle case
Using only best and worst cases obscures the ordinary outcome that often drives the actual expected value.
Describing outcomes without mechanisms
A revenue number is not a scenario unless it explains what customer, product, or distribution changes produce it.
Ignoring opportunity cost
A strategy can succeed operationally while still being a poor use of capital relative to available alternatives.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best for acquisitions, investments, launches, and other consequential decisions with uncertain multi-year outcomes.
Not ideal for
It is not ideal for routine reversible choices where detailed scenario planning costs more than the decision itself.
From the transcript
“let's paint an A plus C and F scenario for the next five years of Slack within Salesforce.”
“the F is always obvious, right?”
“A plus to me is that uh Slack on its own has been a reasonably high growth SaaS company”
From the episode
Special: Slack + Salesforce Emergency Pod with Packy McCormick of Not Boring