Jane and TC Members,

Feedback on the Executive Brief DPS for your consideration:

• The document switches between "OASIS Data Provenance (DPS)" and "OASIS Data Provenance Standards (DPS)". Suggest choosing one and using it consistently throughout. 

• Key concepts, including trust, interoperability, transparency, AI deployment without guesswork, and procurement benefits, are reiterated multiple times throughout the sections. For example: "AI Deployment Without the Guesswork" appears both as a headline and again in narrative text. Suggest condensing these ideas into a single, clear, and strong section to avoid redundancy. Additionally, repeated slogans/headlines like "AI Deployment Without the Guesswork" could be used once, in a highlight box or graphic, instead of being scattered throughout the content.

• Many sentences are longer than necessary. For example: "Adopting the DPS isn't just a compliance task-it's a declaration of intent. It signals an organization's readiness to lead in a future defined by transparent, trustworthy, and ethical data practices." We can shorten this to: "Adopting DPS is more than compliance-it signals readiness to lead in a transparent and ethical data future." Similar opportunities exist throughout, and I recommend a general tightening pass, which should also shorten the document overall.

• Numbering is inconsistent (some sections use "01, 02, 03", others use bullet points or narrative flow). We might want to streamline this for ease of visual reference.

• Headings are not always aligned in tone. Some are declarative ("TRUSTED DATA PROVENANCE STANDARDS ARE ESSENTIAL") and others are descriptive ("Business Impact & Benefits"). Suggest unifying into a consistent style.

• "Business Impact & Benefits," "Expected Outcomes," and "Key Recommendations" all repeat similar benefits (compliance, trust, procurement efficiency). These could be merged into a shorter, more focused section.

• The "Call to Action" and "Commit to Actionable Change" overlap; these could be streamlined into a single, strong closing section, as suggested by Andy.

• Acronyms are frequently used without being defined (e.g., AI, RFP). Should we define terms for non-technical readers?

Feedback on Executive Brief Slides for your consideration: 

• Document sometimes says "OASIS Data Provenance Standards (DPS)" and elsewhere just "OASIS Data Provenance" or "Data Provenance Standards." Recommend always using the full form OASIS Data Provenance Standards (DPS) at first mention on each major section, then DPS thereafter.

• Multiple slides repeat the same benefit statements in different forms: "AI deployment without guesswork" appears twice (Expected Outcomes & Business Impact). "Trusted data = reduced risk, higher incomes, lower costs" is reiterated in both Business Impact and Closing Thoughts. Procurement certainty / compliance / efficiency are mentioned across at least 3 slides. I suggest consolidating into a single strong "Benefits & Outcomes" slide with 4–5 crisp points.

• Some slides are text-heavy and read more like a whitepaper than slides (e.g., "Operational Benefits" and "Leadership & Implementation"). For executive slides, less is more so I think we should use 3–4 bullet points max per slide. If we have a video to accompany the Executive Brief, we can use the supporting text for speaker delivery.

• We need to tell the story consistently in all of the DPS materials (The Challenge (why this matters), The Solution: DPS (what it is), Benefits & Outcomes (group all compliance, AI trust, procurement together), Leadership Actions (steps: pilot → collect metadata → visualize → align → scale), Call to Action / Closing (ecosystem engagement, next steps)). Doing so would cut redundancy and make the deck more compelling.

• Several slides are lists that could be strengthened as visuals (e.g., "Recommendations for Leaders" could be presented as a roadmap diagram, or "Expected Outcomes" could be transformed into a 4-block visual (AI Confidence / Efficiency / Trust / Compliance). "Interoperable Standards" could be a framework diagram showing taxonomy, lineage, policy, restrictions.

• Nitpicks: Slide "WHY TRUSTED DATA PROVENANCE MATTERS" has a typo: "itegrity" → should be integrity. Some capitalization inconsistencies: e.g., "Cross-industry collaboration" vs "CROSS-INDUSTRY COLLABORATION." Suggest aligning to a single style (title case recommended for slide decks).

• The last two slides ("Closing Thoughts" and "Commit & Connect") overlap. We should merge into a single action-oriented final slide with: Key value statement (trusted data = lower risk, higher performance), Clear call to action (pilot → scale → share → connect), and Contact info. 

Kristina