# Cold-email writing and review

Read this reference when drafting or reviewing message copy. Treat the structures as choices, not mandatory templates.

## Choose a structure

- **Observation → relevance → value/proof → ask** works when a supported company or role observation has a direct connection to the problem.
- **Trigger → implication → useful next step → ask** works when a dated launch, funding, hiring or technology event changes the recipient's situation.
- **Problem → credible alternative → proof → ask** works for a persona-level message when no individual observation is available.

Do not force a trigger into the opening. A plain role-relevant problem is stronger than a decorative fact. Mention only the proof the sender can substantiate, and preserve qualification in words such as “may,” “pilot,” or “in this case” when evidence does not justify a general result.

## Make the ask easy to evaluate

Use one reply-sized ask that matches the relationship stage: interest in comparing approaches, confirmation that the problem is relevant, or permission to share a useful detail. Do not stack a meeting request, document review and referral request into one email. Avoid false scarcity, invented deadlines and implied familiarity.

Subject lines should describe the topic or business relevance without fake `Re:`/`Fwd:`, deceptive urgency or unsupported personalization. Greeting and sign-off style can follow the user's brand voice.

## Differentiate follow-ups

Each follow-up earns its place by adding one new element:

- a different supported consequence of the problem;
- a second proof point with its own evidence;
- a short relevant resource or useful observation;
- a smaller or alternative ask;
- a respectful close-out that makes declining easy.

Restating the original email, “bumping” it, or changing only the subject is not a new angle. If no supported new value exists, shorten the sequence rather than fabricate material.

## Recipient-view review

Review in this order:

1. **Strategy**: Is this recipient or persona plausibly responsible for the problem, and does the offer address it?
2. **Evidence**: Can every recipient-specific, company-specific and proof claim be traced to supplied material or a dated source?
3. **Trust**: Does the note reveal invasive research, imply surveillance, fabricate a relationship or make a guarantee?
4. **Friction**: Is there one clear, proportionate ask with enough context to decide whether to reply?
5. **Sequence value**: Does each follow-up add a genuinely different reason to engage?
6. **Clarity**: Only after the above, remove jargon, repetition and unnecessary setup.

Record material objections and the resulting change. Do not manufacture criticism for stylistic variety, and do not treat a polished sentence as a fix for missing strategy or proof.