Executives are not buying your mechanism. They are buying a decision and its consequences. When you open with how something works, you're answering a question they didn't ask, and you're spending their attention on your interest, understanding the system, instead of theirs, knowing what to decide.
Lead with presenting: the conclusion first. 'We need to delay the release two weeks or we ship with a security gap.' That sentence alone lets an executive act, even if the meeting ends right there. Everything after it, the vulnerability, the patch timeline, the vendor dependency, is support that only matters if they ask for it, and most of the time they won't, because the conclusion already told them what they need.
This connects to interests. Their interest is rarely the mechanism. It's usually risk, cost, timeline, or what they'll have to explain to their own boss. Answer that interest directly and hold the mechanism in reserve. If they push back or ask 'why,' that's your invitation to go one layer deeper, not before.
Technical people often think explaining more thoroughly shows rigor. To an executive it reads as an inability to prioritize what matters. Say the decision first. Let the mechanism be the answer to a question, not the opening statement.
Presenting puts the decision first so it survives a short meeting; identifying the executive's real interest keeps the mechanism as backup instead of the headline.