Read the scenario, examine the four habits, then complete the reflection activities before revealing the suggested responses.
Priya is a financial analyst supporting a business unit that is preparing its quarterly performance review. She is responsible for checking the latest forecast before the figures are presented to senior management.
During her review, Priya notices that the forecast prepared by another analyst, James, assumes that sales will increase significantly during the final quarter of the year. However, recent sales performance has been below plan, and Priya cannot find enough supporting evidence for the higher growth assumption.
She is concerned that the forecast may present an overly positive view of the expected year-end result. If the assumption is not reviewed, senior management could make decisions based on figures that may not fully reflect the current business outlook.
Priya writes the following message to James:
From Priya's perspective, the message is direct and responsible. She wants to make sure that management receives a reliable financial forecast.
However, James may interpret the message differently. He may feel that Priya is questioning his professional competence or suggesting that he has deliberately produced unreliable figures. He may also have information supporting the assumptions that Priya has not yet seen.
This situation demonstrates a common challenge in written communication. The sender may focus mainly on the issue that needs to be addressed, while the receiver may also interpret the language as a judgement about their work or ability.
Before sending the message, Priya considers the possible communication risks.
The message concerns the quality of another person's financial analysis and could influence information that will be presented to senior management. It also contains strong statements about whether the assumptions are realistic and whether the figures are reliable.
Priya recognises that these factors make the communication sensitive. If James feels personally criticised, he may become defensive and focus on protecting his analysis instead of discussing the assumptions openly.
There is also another risk. Priya may not have all the information. James may have received updated information from the sales team, customer pipeline data, or other evidence that supports the forecast.
Being risk-aware therefore encourages Priya to take extra care before sending the message. It does not mean that she should avoid challenging the forecast. Financial analysts have a responsibility to question assumptions and highlight risks. The important point is to communicate the concern in a way that supports an accurate and constructive review.
Priya uses the Coconsider prompt with a Gen AI tool as an interpretation mirror.
She asks the AI to consider how James might receive the message and identify any wording that could sound blaming, dismissive, or unnecessarily critical.
The AI highlights phrases such as “your forecast is too optimistic,” “not realistic,” and “unreliable numbers.” These expressions may cause James to feel that Priya has already decided that his analysis is wrong before understanding the reasons behind the assumptions.
The AI also observes that the message does not invite James to explain the evidence supporting his forecast.
This perspective helps Priya recognise an important difference between questioning a financial assumption and questioning the person who developed it.
Her purpose is to test whether the forecast is sufficiently supported, not to make a personal judgement about James.
Priya does not automatically accept everything suggested by the Gen AI.
The AI does not know the complete financial situation. It does not have full knowledge of the company's forecasting methodology, recent commercial discussions, management expectations, internal controls, or the evidence available to James.
The AI may also suggest wording that is too cautious. In financial analysis, analysts sometimes need to communicate concerns clearly, particularly when assumptions could materially affect a forecast or management decision.
Priya therefore reviews the AI's feedback while keeping her professional responsibilities in mind.
She decides that her message should clearly identify the assumption she is concerned about, explain why she is questioning it, and ask James to provide the supporting information or reconsider the assumption.
The AI helps her examine the communication, but it does not determine whether the forecast is financially appropriate.
Priya clarifies what she wants the communication to achieve.
Her objective is to make sure that the forecast assumptions are supported by reasonable evidence before the figures are presented to management. She also wants to understand whether James has relevant information that she has not considered.
She therefore revises her message:
The revised message still raises the financial concern clearly. However, it focuses on the assumption and the supporting evidence rather than judging the quality of James's work.
It also creates an opportunity for James to provide additional information.
Priya remains responsible for deciding whether the assumption is reasonable, whether further analysis is required, and whether the issue needs to be raised with the finance manager.
The four Coconsider habits work together in this situation.
Being risk-aware helps Priya recognise that challenging another person's financial analysis may create misunderstanding or defensiveness.
Using Gen AI gives her an additional perspective on how the message may be interpreted by the receiver.
Using the AI with care reminds her that its observations may be incomplete and that it cannot determine whether a financial assumption is technically correct without the necessary evidence and context.
Staying human-led ensures that Priya remains responsible for the purpose of the communication, the quality of the financial analysis, and the final decision about what should be communicated.
The objective is not simply to make a difficult message sound more polite. The objective is to make the communication more effective in achieving the required financial and business outcome.
In this scenario, the Coconsider approach helps Priya distinguish between challenging an assumption and criticising the person who created it.
This can encourage a more open discussion about the evidence behind the forecast. James may be more willing to explain his reasoning, share new information, or reconsider the assumption if necessary.
The approach can also support better financial analysis. Finance professionals regularly need to challenge forecasts, budgets, business cases, investment assumptions, and performance results. Constructive communication can make it easier for colleagues to question assumptions without turning professional disagreement into personal conflict.
This may lead to better information sharing, stronger analysis, and more reliable decisions.
The Coconsider approach cannot determine whether the financial forecast is correct.
Gen AI may identify possible interpretations of a message, but it may not understand the organisation's financial model, accounting requirements, internal controls, commercial situation, or the quality of the underlying data.
It may also provide an interpretation that does not reflect how the actual receiver will respond. People have different communication styles, experiences, responsibilities, and expectations.
There is also a risk that attempts to make communication more considerate could make an important financial concern sound less serious than it actually is. Where there is a material financial error, control failure, regulatory concern, or risk of misleading information, direct communication and appropriate escalation may be necessary.
For these reasons, Gen AI should support professional judgement rather than replace it. Financial evidence, appropriate controls, organisational procedures, and human accountability must remain central to the decision.
Type your own response. When you are ready, compare it with the suggested answer.
The message mixed a valid concern about the forecast assumptions with language that could be interpreted as criticism of James's professional ability. Words such as “not realistic” and “unreliable numbers” could make him defensive and reduce the opportunity for an open discussion about the evidence.
Gen AI acted as an interpretation mirror. It helped Priya consider how James might receive the message and identify wording that could sound blaming or judgemental. It also helped her recognise that she should ask about the evidence behind the assumption before reaching a final conclusion.
Priya remains responsible for assessing the financial evidence, applying professional judgement, understanding the business context, and deciding whether the forecast should be changed or escalated. Gen AI can help her examine how the message may be received, but it cannot take responsibility for the financial analysis or the final decision.