Calculate the Yes Math
A one-hour method to turn fuzzy regulatory goals into counted commitments
Welcome to the Power Shifts newsletter. I’m Joseph Lavoie, a partner at Crestview, a global public affairs agency. Each week I share frameworks, playbooks, and case studies on designing effective public affairs strategies. I also explore my longstanding theory that every business is in the business of politics.
Free members can read a portion of each article, while paid members can read the whole thing. For some, part of the article satiates. But if you’re hungry for more, I’d love you to consider becoming a paid member!
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.
