mechanism-ideation

Purpose

Generate 5-7 novel mechanism angles for a product's core claim. A mechanism is the unique, specific explanation of WHY a product delivers its result — not "it works" but "because of [specific thing no competitor can claim]." This is Stefan Georgi's "Copy Thinking" — strategic ideation before a single word of copy is written. The mechanism is what separates winning copy from generic copy.

A strong mechanism is:

• Novel — the reader thinks "I've never heard of that before"
• Specific — names a compound, process, framework, or system
• Believable — grounded in real product attributes or research
• Ownable — passes the "only we" test (no competitor can claim it)

Inputs

Execution Protocol

Step 1 — Load Framework Context

Read rmbc-context/SKILL.md for framework overview and quality dimensions. The mechanism phase requires a novel explanation that passes the "only we" test.

Step 2 — Extract Raw Material

From product_description and research_context, identify:

• Differentiators — What does this product have that competitors don't?
• Process uniqueness — How is it made, formulated, delivered, or structured differently?
• Proof anchors — What clinical data, patents, case studies, or results exist?
• Naming opportunities — What can be branded, coined, or reframed?

Step 3 — Branch by Category

Supplements

Focus on ingredient-based mechanisms:

• Unique compounds or proprietary blends
• Delivery systems (liposomal, time-release, nano-emulsion)
• Synergistic combinations ("X amplifies Y by Z%")
• Bioavailability advantages (absorption rates, clinical comparisons)
• Dosage differentiation (therapeutic dose vs competitor underdosing)
• Origin/sourcing story (high-altitude, wild-harvested, patented extraction)

E-commerce

Focus on product design and manufacturing mechanisms:

• Material innovation (proprietary fabric, alloy, compound)
• Manufacturing process (hand-finished, 47-step quality check, zero-waste)
• Structural engineering (patented hinge, load distribution, airflow system)
• Sourcing story (single-origin, direct-from-artisan, traceable supply chain)
• Design methodology (tested with 500 users, 3 years R&D, biomechanics lab)
• Performance metric (lasts 3x longer, 40% lighter, withstands 10,000 cycles)

Info Products

Focus on methodology and framework mechanisms:

• Proprietary framework (named system, unique sequencing, contrarian model)
• Elimination angle ("removes the one thing that blocks X")
• Speed/compression mechanism ("condenses 10 years into 90 days because...")
• Counter-intuitive principle ("works by doing the opposite of conventional advice")
• Stacking/layering system ("3 phases that compound — each unlocks the next")
• Credential transfer ("developed from [specific experience] that no course covers")

Step 4 — Generate Mechanism Ideas

For each of the 5-7 mechanisms, develop:

1. Mechanism name — A coined or branded term (e.g., "Tri-Phase Absorption Complex," "The Reverse Funnel Method")
2. One-line explanation — What it is in plain language
3. Why it works — The causal logic (2-3 sentences)
4. Proof anchor — What evidence supports this mechanism
5. Novelty score — 1-5 (1 = commonly claimed, 5 = never seen before)
6. Specificity rating — 1-5 (1 = vague, 5 = precise and concrete)
7. Believability check — HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW with one-line rationale

Step 5 — Rank and Recommend

Rank mechanisms by combined score (novelty + specificity). Flag any with LOW believability — these need additional research before use. Recommend the top 2-3 for copy development.

Output Format

## Mechanism Ideation: [Product Name]

**Category:** [supplement | ecommerce | info_product]
**Target claim:** [what the mechanism must explain]

---

### 1. [Mechanism Name]

**What it is:** [one-line explanation]

**Why it works:** [2-3 sentence causal logic]

**Proof anchor:** [supporting evidence]

| Novelty | Specificity | Believability |
|---------|-------------|---------------|
| X/5     | X/5         | HIGH/MED/LOW  |

[Repeat for each mechanism]

---

## Recommendation

**Top picks:** [ranked top 2-3 with brief rationale]

**Research gaps:** [any mechanisms that need deeper research before use]

**Next steps:** [which downstream skills to run]

Quality Criteria

• Every mechanism must name something specific — no "powerful formula" or "unique blend"
• At least 3 of 7 mechanisms should score 4+ on novelty
• Any mechanism scoring LOW on believability must include a research gap callout
• Mechanisms must be grounded in actual product attributes, not fabricated claims
• Output should give a copywriter enough material to write a mechanism reveal section
• Specificity gate: Every mechanism angle must include a number, name, or timeframe — no "unique approach" or "effective process"
• Mechanism quantification: When referencing the mechanism, include at least one specific data point (number, timeframe, study reference)
• Audience journey: Each mechanism must reference where the reader IS (what they've tried, what's failing) — not just who they are demographically
• Proof diversity: Use at least 2 different proof types (testimonial, statistical, authority, case study) — do not rely on a single proof mode
• Objection handling: Each mechanism must survive skepticism — address "sounds too good to be true" with a grounding proof point and "how is this different?" with an explicit contrast to the conventional approach

Related Skills

• If research is thin, run /ingredient-research or /unified-research-synthesizer first
• After mechanism selected, use in /hook-battery for mechanism-driven hooks
• Feed chosen mechanism into /rmbc-copy-audit to validate mechanism scores

Attribution

Generated using RMBC framework by Stefan Georgi. Learn more: copyaccelerator.com/join