Calculate the Yes Math
A one-hour method to turn fuzzy regulatory goals into counted commitments
This is part of my series on building a minimum-viable regulatory campaign.
I’ve been writing this series for two reasons:
I’m stress-testing some concepts for a book idea I’m fleshing out.
I’m trying to force myself to adapt some changes in how I run campaigns.
On that second point: I’ve long believed in the value of planning. If you ever hire me to run your regulatory campaign, I insist on a plan—and on research to inform it. The trade-off is time: a solid plan usually takes 3–6 weeks.
But sometimes you’re in so much pain you don’t have time for a diagnosis. You pop an Advil and patch the injury so you can move. That’s what this series is about: moving faster when perfect can’t be the enemy of good.
How do we move quickly?
1. Name the fight
Time needed: 15 minutes
We name the fight, in plain language. To keep this step fast, we limit ourselves to one sentence:
We [seek exact text/decision] by [date] because [business reason].
Here’s a hypothetical example, if you’re leading the regulatory affairs team for a food and beverage company that wants a stepped approach to new labeling requirements:
“We want the committee to start the “High in Sugar” warning at 12g/100ml, step it down to 10g/100ml over 24 months, and allow a 10mm icon on bottles 350ml or less so we avoid needless reprints.”
2. Draft your Win Theory
Time needed: 1 hour
I won’t walk you through the Win Theory in any detail. You can read the full breakdown here. In short, the Win Theory is a disciplined exercise in defining, in detail, what success looks like and how you’ll get there. The thinking that goes into developing the Win Theory forces clarity of thought (strategy) before you get to tactics. When you’re in a pinch, you can build this out in an hour by answering the seven simple questions I laid out for you in that detailed breakdown.
If we build on the hypothetical food and beverage example, your Win Theory might look like this:
Decision: Amend the proposed "High in Sugar" warning standard to include a 12g/100ml threshold with 24-month step-down, and allow 10mm icons on smaller containers.
Decision Date: September 25, 2025 (Standards Committee Vote)
Who must say YES: 8 of 15 Standards Committee members, particularly the Chair (Dr. Elaine Huang) and the Consumer Protection representative (Thomas Greer)
Who moves them: Public health advisors, industry compliance experts, their technical staff, respected retailers. Specifically, Paediatric dieticians, small grocers, retailers.
What we offer: A pathway that achieves public health goals while reducing unnecessary compliance costs and consumer confusion.
What we're asking: Specific text amendments to Section 3.4.2 of the draft standard.
Fallback asks: 1) Just the phased implementation, 2) Just the size adjustment for small packages.
Conversion Moments: Industry roundtable (Aug 22), Pre-vote technical briefing (Aug 29), Committee presentation (Sep 5).
3. Map the Arena
Time needed: 2 hours
Of course, with any given regulatory or political issue, you must figure out which game you’re playing. You can read my full breakdown on the Arena Map framework here, but when you need to move fast, you can develop this math in one to two hours.
Here’s how the map may look in our hypothetical example:
Arena: National Food Labelling Standards Committee (formal vote). Real drafting happens in the Front-of-Pack (FOP) Technical Working Group. Meetings are hybrid; the final vote is recorded in full committee minutes.
Gates: FOP Technical Working Group meeting Fri Aug 15, 2025 (10:00–12:00); Staff recommendation finalized Mon Aug 25, 2025 (17:00); Pre-vote briefings Tue–Fri Aug 26–29; Committee vote Fri Sep 5, 2025 (09:00–11:00).
Gatekeepers: TWG Chair: Dr. Melissa Wong; Committee Secretary: James Parker (controls agenda and document circulation); Committee Chair: Dr. Elaine Huang (sets vote procedure)
Movers/Blockers: Movers — National Retailers Association; Independent Grocers Council; Chamber SME Taskforce. Blockers — Consumer Health Alliance; Institute for Public Health; Pediatric Endocrinology Society (argues for an immediate 10g threshold without phase-in).
Crowd: Low chance of broad public attention unless Consumer Health Alliance runs a media push; if so, expect “watering down labels” framing. Counter with pediatric dietitian validators and small-grocer testimony.
Access Routes: Before Aug 15: TWG technical submission via portal item FOP-2025-021 (deadline Wed Aug 13, 17:00); Aug 18–22: stakeholder consultation call with the Secretariat; Aug 26–29: 30-minute pre-vote meetings with Chair/Secretary; Sep 2 (17:00): slide deck due for a 10-minute formal presentation on Sep 5.
Escalation Plan: If TWG rejects on Aug 15: 1) file a Minority Position Memo by Mon Aug 18 to append to the staff pack; 2) mobilize retailer/grocer allies to request the Chair table the step-down language test at the full committee; 3) if the full committee rejects on Sep 5, seek a ministerial clarification letter and propose a 12-month implementation guidance as a backstop.
4. Calculate the Yes Math
Yes Math is the minimum set of commitments, criteria, and signals needed to unlock a “yes” in the arena. If you can’t show the math, you’ll drift into to activity for the sake of it. We’ve got no time to waste, so let’s make sure your time is focused on what actually changes the math. You’ll do this in four steps, and get it down in an hour:
Step 1: Name the decision rule (what unlocks yes)
Time needed: 15 minutes.
Pick the pattern that applies:
Vote: Simple tallying of explicit yes/no decisions, where a specified threshold must be reached to approve an action.
Sign-offs: Sequential approval from specific named individuals or roles, all of whom must approve for the decision to pass.
Staff recommendation + discretion: Professional staff make a formal recommendation that is typically followed unless specific conditions trigger leadership review.
Consensus/criteria: Approval based on meeting multiple specific requirements rather than explicit votes.
Quasi-judicial/consultation weight: Decision based on volume and quality of supporting evidence meeting predetermined standards.
Write it plainly:
“A yes happens if [rule/law] and [evidence/record] and [process gate].”
Step 2: Define the counting units and thresholds
Time needed: 15 minutes.
What exactly are you counting to get to yes?
Votes: How many? Whose?
Sign-offs: Which titles/names must sign?
Evidence thresholds: What test, at what N, with what pass criteria?
Record signals: How many substantive submissions? From which segments? Any required validator letters?
Process gates: Agenda slot secured? Draft language tabled by a deadline?
If a unit can’t be counted, you can’t manage it. Replace vague words (“momentum, “awareness,” “support”) with counts.
Step 3: List the deciders, shapers, validators—with a live tally
Time needed: 15 minutes.
Build a simple grid. Populate specific names, not institutions.
Deciders: vote/sign/decide.
Shapers: staff/advisors who write the memo or set the docket.
Validators: voices your deciders actually heed (professional associations, local business leaders, patient groups, former officials).
Make a simple grid and mark “Firm Yes, Lean Yes, Swing, Lean No, Firm No
Remember, validators aren’t influencers with big followings. They’re credible to the decider. That’s a narrower and more powerful lens to look through.
Step 4: Close the Gap
Time needed: 15 minutes.
For each required unit (vote, sign-off, evidence, record, gate), name:
Conversion moment: the discrete action that moves the number.
Owner: one accountable person.
Deadline: calendar date that aligns with the real decision clock.
The Ask: the exact commitment you will request.
If you can’t describe the conversion moment in a single sentence that starts with a verb, it’s not actionable.
A hypothetical worked example (food and beverage)
Decision rule:
A yes happens if both the FOP Technical Working Group accepts the step-down language. We need 7 out of 13 committee votes, staff recommendation, evidence showing 80% consumer understanding, and proof it works on small packages.
Counting units & thresholds
Votes: We need 7 out of 13 committee members to vote yes, but we're aiming for 8 to be safe
Staff recommendation: We must get staff to officially "Recommend Adopt" for our proposal
Evidence: We need to show that at least 80% of consumers understand our labels, that our approach works as well as the immediate 10g baseline, and that our labels are readable at 10mm size on small packages (350ml or less)
Public support: We need 300 written submissions including at least 20 from health professionals and 100 from small retailers
Process requirements: We need a confirmed 10-minute slot at the committee meeting and our amendment text must be circulated to members
Current → Gap (Aug 31 snapshot):
Votes: We have 5 confirmed supporters (one retailer representative, three industry members, and one consumer safety advocate). Three committee members could go either way (two public health representatives and one academic). Five members' positions are unknown. We need three more votes to win (though ideally four more for a safety margin).
Staff recommendation: The staff hasn't committed yet. The Secretary has asked for more evidence before making a recommendation.
Evidence: We've completed a comprehension test with 600 participants, and we're planning a legibility pilot study.
Public support: We need 300 written submissions, but currently have none. We have plans to collect these starting 7 days before the deadline.
Process steps: We've submitted our proposal to the Technical Working Group (reference FOP-2025-021), and we're scheduling pre-briefing meetings.
Gap-closing actions (and owners):
Evidence: Send the research report showing consumers understand our labels and that they're readable on small packages (Research team, due August 20).
Staff recommendation: Schedule a 30-minute meeting with the Secretary and Chair to review our proposal (Regulatory team, August 21) - remember to directly ask: "Can we get your formal recommendation to adopt this?"
Public comments: Start our campaign to collect 300 supporting comments (Field team, August 27-29) - assign targets to team members and track progress daily.
Expert support: Get support letters from the Pediatric Dietitians Association and Independent Grocers Council (Public Affairs team, August 22).
Committee votes: CEO will personally call the retail representative and two public health committee members using our prepared talking points (CEO with Public Affairs support, by September 3). Document whether they commit to supporting us.
The payoff
The Yes Math does three things for you immediately:
Focus: You stop funding tactics that don’t move a counted unit.
Speed: Owners know their next ask and the date.
Accountability: The board and C-suite can see, at a glance, how close you are—and why.
Traps to avoid
Misreading the rule. You’re lobbying a committee when the real veto is a legal sign-off. Fix: write the one-sentence rule and have staff/counsel confirm it.
Counting vibes, not units. “We’re seeing momentum online” is not a unit. Fix: convert to counts (e.g., “≥50 submissions from small retailers”).
Over-indexing on volume, ignoring credibility. 1,000 boilerplate comments < 2 validator letters the Chair trusts. Fix: weight your asks to what the decider values.
Missing the process gate. You won the argument, but your amendment missed circulation. Fix: put gates (agenda, tabling deadlines) on the same board as votes.
Not making the ask. Staff won’t volunteer a “Recommend Adopt.” Fix: ask explicitly, with the evidence on the table.
Your turn…
What have I missed? What would you add?