Add Executive Summary as the report's first page

A standalone first page ahead of any detailed numbers: the month's
goal (from the Roadmap), a Yes/No/Partial verdict on whether it was
met, and a Pros/Cons list, color-coded (green/red/amber). Hand-
authored per month in monthly_report_notes.py's new
"executive_summary" key, same pattern as the other narrative
sections, since "did we meet our goal" is a judgment call, not
something computed from the export data. Renders only when present,
so August/September are unaffected until written up. A page break
separates it from the rest of the report so it stands alone as
page 1.

Drafted July's as a first pass grounded in facts already established
in this report (the emotional-vs-rational engagement gap, the poll's
zero engagement, the 27/08 audit gap) — needs Mckinley's review since
the goal-met verdict is inherently a judgment call, not something to
assert unilaterally.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

monthly_report_notes.py

@@ -21,6 +21,38 @@ _CORE_MESSAGE_ABSTRACT = [
 
 NOTES = {
     "2026-07": {
+        "executive_summary": {
+            "goal": "Find the Voice — establish a consistent brand voice and discover "
+                    "which posts and formats drove the most engagement.",
+            "goal_met": "Yes",
+            "goal_met_note": "A clear format/tone winner emerged: Carousels and a "
+                              "personal, emotional-register story (the 14/07-28/07-30/07 "
+                              "trilogy) outperformed everything else, giving a concrete, "
+                              "audited answer to what resonates with this audience.",
+            "pros": [
+                "Emotional/personal-voice posts averaged 21.8% Real Eng % vs. Rational "
+                "posts' 8.1%, a wide, decisive gap.",
+                "Page grew from 85 to 107 followers (+22, +25.9%).",
+                "Best single post hit 45.0% Real Eng %, the clear #1 all month.",
+                "Real Eng % audit methodology (Audience-only, hand-verified, Team "
+                "excluded) built and rolled out, replacing LinkedIn's raw/Team-inflated "
+                "numbers with a trustworthy figure everything else in this report reads "
+                "from.",
+            ],
+            "cons": [
+                "The one validation attempt (21/07 poll) got zero responses — whether "
+                "this audience engages with interactive formats at all is still "
+                "unanswered.",
+                "10/07 was a repost, not original content, requiring exclusion logic to "
+                "keep every number honest — a reminder to plan the full month's content "
+                "in advance.",
+                "'Avg. Eng. Rate' (LinkedIn's raw daily figure) is still unreconciled "
+                "with Real Eng %, an open methodology question.",
+                "Audit coverage had a real gap (27/08) that wasn't caught until "
+                "September — the hand-audit process needs to stay current within the "
+                "month it covers, not catch up later.",
+            ],
+        },
         "core_message_abstract": _CORE_MESSAGE_ABSTRACT,
         "roadmap_abstract": [
             ("Find the Voice.", True),

report.py

@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ from reportlab.lib.units import cm
 from reportlab.platypus import (SimpleDocTemplate, Table, TableStyle, Paragraph,
                                  Spacer, Image, HRFlowable)
 from docx import Document
-from docx.shared import Cm, Pt
+from docx.shared import Cm, Pt, RGBColor
 from docx.oxml.ns import qn
 from docx.oxml import OxmlElement
 
@@ -897,6 +897,43 @@ def build_report_docx(ctx, timeframe_value="all"):
         f"Data as of {D['last_updated'].strftime('%B %d, %Y')}"
     ).italic = True
 
+    # --- Executive Summary: standalone first page (goal, met/not, pros/cons) — a
+    # leadership-facing read of "did this month work", ahead of any of the detailed
+    # numbers below it. Hand-authored per month in monthly_report_notes.py, same as
+    # the other narrative sections, since "did we meet our goal" is a judgment call,
+    # not something computed from the export data.
+    exec_summary = (monthly_notes or {}).get("executive_summary")
+    if exec_summary:
+        doc.add_heading("Executive Summary", level=1)
+        goal_p = doc.add_paragraph()
+        goal_p.add_run("Goal: ").bold = True
+        goal_p.add_run(exec_summary.get("goal", ""))
+        met_p = doc.add_paragraph()
+        met_p.add_run("Goal Met: ").bold = True
+        met_run = met_p.add_run(exec_summary.get("goal_met", "—"))
+        met_run.bold = True
+        goal_met_val = str(exec_summary.get("goal_met", "")).strip().lower()
+        if goal_met_val == "yes":
+            met_run.font.color.rgb = RGBColor(0x2E, 0x7D, 0x32)
+        elif goal_met_val == "no":
+            met_run.font.color.rgb = RGBColor(0xC6, 0x28, 0x28)
+        elif goal_met_val == "partial":
+            met_run.font.color.rgb = RGBColor(0xB2, 0x6A, 0x00)
+        goal_met_note = exec_summary.get("goal_met_note")
+        if goal_met_note:
+            doc.add_paragraph(goal_met_note)
+        pros = exec_summary.get("pros") or []
+        if pros:
+            doc.add_heading("Pros", level=2)
+            for item in pros:
+                doc.add_paragraph(item, style="List Bullet")
+        cons = exec_summary.get("cons") or []
+        if cons:
+            doc.add_heading("Cons", level=2)
+            for item in cons:
+                doc.add_paragraph(item, style="List Bullet")
+        doc.add_page_break()
+
     # --- KPI summary table ---
     doc.add_heading("Key Metrics", level=1)
     kpi_rows = [