I wonder if any science has been done on this - to me there seems a tradeoff. BLUF might work for executives that trust their reports. But it might be the exact opposite of what you need if you're trying to convince an audience of something counter-intuitive.

If you're going to be educated about a conclusion that is surprising or objectionable, would you rather be told the non-controversial premises first and then share in the reasoning process that leads to the conclusion? Or would you rather be told the conclusion first, and then unpack the argument from there? The latter seems like it could invite more opposition and waste more time.