> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://help.rytz.com.au/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

# Strategic Planning

> RYTZ's high-level case-strategy worksheet. Step back from the day-to-day grind, look at the matter end-to-end, and decide the moves that frame the next 30/60/90 days.

import { Card, CardGroup, Note, Tip, Warning } from '@mintlify/components'

The **Strategic Planning** surface at `app.rytz.com.au/strategic-planning` is the platform's "step back and look at the whole matter" tool. Where the Parenting Planner, Settlement Planner, and Affidavit toolkit handle specific work products, Strategic Planning is for the wider questions — what's my position, what are my options, what should I prioritise, what could blindside me.

## When to use it

Three moments where Strategic Planning earns its keep:

<CardGroup cols={2}>
  <Card title="Beginning of a matter" icon="flag">
    Before you've done anything. Strategic Planning helps you frame what you're trying to achieve and the realistic paths to get there. This frames every subsequent decision.
  </Card>

  <Card title="At a major decision point" icon="signs-post">
    Settle now, pursue interim orders, engage a lawyer, escalate to trial — these decisions deserve more than a 5-minute think. Strategic Planning is the structured 60-minute decision space.
  </Card>

  <Card title="When the matter has shifted" icon="arrows-rotate">
    Their position changed. New evidence emerged. A court direction reshaped the timeline. Re-running Strategic Planning after a shift catches strategic implications that the day-to-day surfaces don't.
  </Card>

  <Card title="Before any major filing" icon="paper-plane">
    Last opportunity to question the underlying strategy before committing it to paper. Filed material is hard to walk back.
  </Card>
</CardGroup>

## The five-question framework

Strategic Planning walks five questions in order. Each is unfashionably hard.

### Question 1 — What am I actually trying to achieve?

Self-represented parties often answer this with means rather than ends. "I'm trying to get full custody" is a means. "I'm trying to ensure my children grow up safe and connected to both parents in a way that gives them stability through adolescence" is an end.

The platform prompts you for both. The end shapes which means are appropriate. Some matters where the parent-stated end is a particular routine are best served by accepting a different routine the other parent is more likely to comply with.

### Question 2 — What does success look like?

Three sub-questions:

* **Best realistic outcome** — what would a perfect resolution look like, given the constraints?
* **Acceptable outcome** — what would you accept and walk away from the matter?
* **Walk-away threshold** — at what point does the cost of pursuing further outweigh the marginal gain?

Most parties don't answer the third question until they're in court spending money they can't afford. Answering it now is a discipline.

### Question 3 — What is the realistic path to success?

Four typical paths, with implications:

| Path                       | Cost    | Time    | Likelihood  | When                                                             |
| -------------------------- | ------- | ------- | ----------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------- |
| **Direct negotiation**     | Lowest  | Fastest | Depends     | When parties can communicate and there's no FV                   |
| **FDR / mediation**        | Low     | Medium  | Medium      | When parties need a structured process but not court             |
| **Limited-scope retainer** | Medium  | Medium  | Medium-High | When some specific advice or representation makes the difference |
| **Full retainer**          | High    | Long    | High        | When matter is complex, contested, or high-stakes                |
| **Trial**                  | Highest | Longest | Variable    | When other paths have failed or are unavailable                  |

Strategic Planning asks you to assess each, weighted to your matter's specifics.

### Question 4 — What could blindside me?

The discipline of pre-mortem. What's the most-likely path to a bad outcome that I'm currently underestimating?

Common blindsides the platform prompts for:

* **Their evidence I haven't seen.** Discovery surprises. What might they have that I don't?
* **A legal argument I haven't anticipated.** The Library and Education Portal can identify cases and sections that might cut against you.
* **A factual claim I'd struggle to refute.** What in my own conduct might come up adversely?
* **Their changing strategy.** What might they shift to that I'm not prepared for?
* **External events.** Job loss, illness, child's behavioural shift, change of school — events outside the matter that reshape it.

Naming the blindsides doesn't prevent them, but it puts you in a position to respond if they happen.

### Question 5 — What are my next 30/60/90 days?

Concrete actions. The platform synthesises from the Master Case File's Next Actions and asks you to commit to a 30/60/90-day plan.

The plan is yours to write — Strategic Planning gives you the structured prompts, you fill in the actions and dates.

## How Strategic Planning differs from Master Case File

A useful distinction:

| Strategic Planning                 | Master Case File           |
| ---------------------------------- | -------------------------- |
| Question-driven                    | Synthesis-driven           |
| Episodic (you run it occasionally) | Living (always current)    |
| Active engagement (you write)      | Passive read (you consume) |
| 30–90-minute investment            | 5-minute read              |
| Strategic-decision context         | Universal-briefing context |

Both reference each other — the Strategic Planning surface saves your answers as a document attached to the matter; the Master Case File's Strategy section pulls relevant material from your most-recent Strategic Planning session.

## Outputs

Strategic Planning produces three artefacts:

<CardGroup cols={2}>
  <Card title="The strategy document" icon="file-lines">
    Your written answers across the five questions, formatted as a working document. Editable, exportable.
  </Card>

  <Card title="Updated Master Case File" icon="folder-tree">
    The Strategy section of the MCF refreshes to incorporate your answers (where they shift the synthesis).
  </Card>

  <Card title="Refreshed Next Actions" icon="list-check">
    The Master Case File's Next Actions list updates to reflect the 30/60/90 plan you committed to.
  </Card>
</CardGroup>

## Sharing strategy externally

A few rules about sharing the strategy document:

<Warning>
  **Do not share the strategy document with the other party.** It contains your assessment of weaknesses and your walk-away threshold. Disclosing this gives them strategic advantage. The platform's export defaults exclude the strategy document from any export marked "for the other party".
</Warning>

<Note>
  **Do share with your lawyer.** The strategy document is exactly what a lawyer needs to engage productively. Most consultations would benefit from receiving it 24 hours before the meeting.
</Note>

<Note>
  **Take care with friends and family.** Strategy can leak when friends are asked for input. The platform's portal-share with explicit recipient logging helps maintain awareness of who has the document.
</Note>

## Re-running Strategic Planning

The platform retains every Strategic Planning session. You can:

* Open a prior session to re-read what you thought at that moment
* Run a new session at any time
* Compare two sessions side-by-side to see how your strategy has evolved

Particularly useful: comparing your strategy at the start of the matter with your strategy 6 months in. The shifts are often instructive — and sometimes reveal that the matter has drifted away from your stated ends without anyone noticing.

## What Strategic Planning is not

* **Not a substitute for legal advice.** Strategy is informed by law; it's not the same as advice. A solicitor's input on strategic decisions is high-leverage where you can afford it.
* **Not a forecast.** Strategy is what you're trying to do; it doesn't predict what will happen.
* **Not a one-and-done.** Matters shift. Strategic Planning expects to be re-run.

## What's next

<CardGroup cols={2}>
  <Card title="Master Case File" icon="folder-tree" href="/master-case-file/overview">
    Where the Strategy section pulls from your most-recent Strategic Planning session.
  </Card>

  <Card title="Case Roadmap" icon="map" href="/case-roadmap/overview">
    The procedural framework that structures how strategies are executed.
  </Card>

  <Card title="Non-Compliance Playbook" icon="circle-exclamation" href="/court-process/non-compliance-playbook">
    Strategy for one specific class of matter — when orders aren't being followed.
  </Card>

  <Card title="Hearing Prep" icon="briefcase" href="/court-process/hearing-prep">
    Strategy for a specific upcoming court event.
  </Card>
</CardGroup>