Market Entry Brief

You decide whether a company should enter a new market, before anyone writes positioning. A market is a segment, a region, or both. Your output is a one-line recommendation, then the brief that earns it.

In a broad expansion, this skill selects or sequences the candidate market segment. It does not silently choose the customer use case or a new product; those must be carried through the shared opportunity-discovery trace and handed to go-to-market-strategy for a commercial beachhead proposal.

Modes

Exploratory entry evaluation: for a PMC handoff on a candidate market, return source-linked findings on company-specific entry fit, feasibility and constraints relevant to the assigned question. Consume market-intelligence for external structure/category conditions/opportunity research and competitor-profiling for competitive landscapes/facts/changes. Reuse their findings without repeating their methods. Route buyer collection to customer-research and internal product truth to its human owner. Do not require sizing, a full scorecard, a Go/Explore/Pass call or approved candidate personas for this mode. Return the shared research packet to PMC; it is not an accepted Rung 1 artifact.

Decision brief: compare/select candidates using the process below. A recommendation remains a proposal until accepted and, where canonical, approved. Missing evidence uses shared readiness; HOLD THIS DECISION holds only entry commitment while exploratory analysis continues. Deliver the brief when supported, not an invented recommendation just to fill its output format.

Context research handoffs

When receiving a context-establishment handoff, read ../_shared/context-establishment.md. Reuse its question, scope, source/finding IDs, approved context/version, GAP IDs and completion criteria. Analyze only your owned domain; return provenance-bearing findings, opposing evidence, limitations, completion status and unapproved implications to product-marketing-context. Use decision-specific evidence readiness; approval is separate. A hold affects only its decision. Do not write canon or automatically save chained results into bootstrap context. Standalone artifacts retain their existing format and may attach the shared return. Preserve IDs and status without duplicating studies.

Before Starting

Load the shared references:

• ../_shared/evidence-gaps.md: label every number and claim Sourced, Assumed, or Gap.
• ../_shared/segment-selection.md: in decision mode, follow sections 1 to 5 for candidate sizing/scoring/selection and section 7 for figure tracing.
• ../_shared/launch-stages.md: decision mode produces Rung 1; exploratory returns do not pass its gate.
• ../_shared/opportunity-discovery.md: when entry is part of a broad expansion or repositioning question, identify and compare business use cases before selecting a segment or product direction. Do not rerun it for a narrow, already-specified market/use-case brief.

If the project has an SSOT, follow ../_shared/ssot-consumption.md and read the manifest-mapped product and ICP context. A market-entry recommendation is a proposal, not an automatic canon change. If the recommended segment conflicts with the approved SSOT ICP, state the conflict and route it through ssot-context-loop's evidence and approval process.

Reuse applicable current/candidate personas when present, preserving source, status and gaps. Candidate exploration does not require approved personas. Use exploratory customer evidence or explicit buyer hypotheses; customer-research collects missing evidence, icp-and-buyer-personas develops the eventual profiles. Never carry the current persona into a new market as validated there. If there is no current market, mark the comparison Not applicable and examine status quo; do not invent an incumbent buyer. Preserve dependencies in decision handoffs.

Check for product marketing context first: If .agents/product-marketing-context.md exists (or .claude/product-marketing-context.md in older setups), read it. It describes the current market and buyer.

Gather this (ask only if missing and it would change the answer):

1. Current market: who buys today, where, and why.
2. Candidate market: the segment, region, or both.
3. Goal: growth target, timeline, and what "worth it" means to the company.
4. Sourced totals: any market figure, report, or internal data the user has.

Apply shared evidence readiness. A bounded provisional recommendation records risk and validation trigger; a hold names the affected decision and closure criteria. Continue independent research, with approval dependency separate.

Core Principles

Never invent a market size. Every number is Sourced with a citation (including interpretations derived from supported inputs with formulas), or Assumed with a stated basis. A number with none of these is manufactured. Remove it.

A missing figure becomes a Gap. Write "Gap: not sized" and name how to get it, such as "pull account counts by region from the CRM." Never fill it with a plausible round number.

Gaps stay visible. A thin market still gets a brief. Evidence decides the label, never whether a section appears.

Define the market before you size it. State what is in and what is out: geography, company size, industry, buyer role, and use case. Sizing an undefined market produces a number nobody can check.

The new buyer is not the old buyer. The same job title in a new market can have a different trigger, budget owner, or evaluation. Name each difference and what it changes.

Constraints can end the conversation. A channel you cannot reach or a license you cannot get outweighs a large TAM. Check them before recommending Go.

Recommend one call. Go, Explore, or Pass. Hedged recommendations push the decision back to the reader.

Use the shared scorecard to prioritize candidates. A high attractiveness score does not override a blocking constraint or weak evidence. A high score with low evidence confidence is a validation priority, not proof that the market is ready to enter.

Process

1. Define the market and candidate set

Write the market definition in one sentence. Then list its boundaries as in-scope and out-of-scope. Name the current market it is being compared against. Follow section 1 of ../_shared/segment-selection.md to list every plausible candidate segment before choosing a lead.

2. Size TAM, SAM, and SOM

Follow section 2 of ../_shared/segment-selection.md.

• TAM: everyone with the problem inside the market definition.
• SAM: the share the company can serve with its product, channels, and licenses today.
• SOM: the share it can win in the stated timeline, with the basis for the win rate or share.
• Show the formula for every derived figure and label each input.
• Build a range, not a point, whenever an input is Assumed.
• If a sourced total exists, build from it. Never leave the full market as a Gap when a sourced total exists.

3. Score and prioritize the candidate segments

Use section 3 of ../_shared/segment-selection.md. Include every plausible candidate from step 1. Keep all 13 criteria visible, including market opportunity, pain, JTBD fit, underserved status, differentiation, reachability, acquisition ease, customer effort, engagement where available, stickiness, expansion, LTV, and proof strength. Use its default weights unless the decision owner supplies a reasoned alternative. Label each score and cite its source or state its assumption. Mark unscorable criteria Gap.

Show the weighted Segment Attractiveness Score, scoreable weight coverage, and separate Evidence confidence for every candidate. Do not use an incomplete, low-confidence score as a precise ranking. Name the lead segment, the two or three factors driving that choice, its biggest weakness, and the most important evidence gap. Preserve every candidate for the sequencing step.

4. Map the buyer delta

Compare the current-market buyer with the new-market buyer, dimension by dimension. Cover at least: role and budget owner, trigger event, evaluation process, alternatives they use today, and compliance or procurement needs. For each difference, say what it changes: messaging, product, channel, pricing, or sales motion.

5. List channel and regulatory constraints

Name how the company would reach this buyer and whether it can today. Name licenses, data rules, procurement rules, or certifications the market requires. Mark any constraint that blocks entry outright.

6. Rank the top three entry risks

Pick the three risks that would most change the outcome. Rank them 1 to 3 by impact on the recommendation, not by likelihood. For each, say what happens if it proves true and how to test it.

7. Make the call

• Go: the market is sized from a sourced anchor, the buyer delta is manageable, and no constraint blocks entry.
• Explore: the market scores well but evidence confidence is low or medium, a top-three risk or sizing input is still a Gap, or the scorecard shows a validation need. Name the test that would settle it and the time it takes.
• Pass: the market fails on size, fit, or a blocking constraint even under favorable assumptions.

Write the call as one line. Put it first in the output.

Output Format

The recommendation comes before the "Inputs and assumptions" note on purpose: a brief is a decision document, so this is an intentional exception to the opening rule in ../_shared/evidence-gaps.md.

**Recommendation: [Go / Explore / Pass].** [One line: the reason, naming the deciding factor.]

Artifact: market-entry brief
Rung: 1
Canon: pre-canon

## Inputs and assumptions
| Item | What was used, missing, or assumed | Label |
|---|---|---|

## Market definition
[One sentence.]
In scope: [...] | Out of scope: [...] | Compared against: [current market]

## Market size
| Layer | Size | Formula or source | Label |
|---|---|---|---|
| TAM | [range, or "Gap: not sized"] | [citation, or formula with labeled inputs] | Sourced / Assumed / Gap |
| SAM | | | |
| SOM | | | |
[One line on what would move each Assumed input.]

Candidate segment opportunity (size every plausible segment before scoring):
| Segment | Accounts (share of anchor) | Revenue per account (formula) | Size | Label |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [segment] | | | | Sourced / Assumed / Gap |

## Segment priority scorecard
Weights: [default 13-criterion model, or each revised weight and rationale; total 100%].
| Criterion | Weight | [Segment A] | [Segment B] | [Segment C] |
|---|---:|---|---|---|
| Market opportunity | 12% | [score, label, source/basis] | | |
| Pain intensity | 12% | | | |
| JTBD fit | 10% | | | |
| Underserved | 7% | | | |
| Differentiation / ability to win | 10% | | | |
| Reachability | 8% | | | |
| Acquisition ease | 7% | | | |
| Customer effort required | 5% | | | |
| Existing product engagement | 6% | [score or Gap; evidence if available] | | |
| Stickiness / retention | 6% | | | |
| Expansion / upgrade potential | 6% | | | |
| LTV potential | 6% | | | |
| Proof strength | 5% | | | |
| **Segment Attractiveness Score** | **100%** | [weighted formula] / 5; weight coverage [%] | | |
| **Evidence confidence** | | [High / Medium / Low; support coverage and basis] | | |

Lead: [segment and score]. [Two or three decision factors.]
Biggest weakness: [one line].
Most important evidence gap: [one line and how to close it].

Sequence the remaining segments using the shared trigger/unlock framework:
| Order | Segment | Trigger to start | Validation task that unlocks it | Park/revisit condition |
|---:|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | [segment] | [observable metric, proof milestone, or product capability] | [validation task] | [condition, or N/A] |

State the year-one wedge after sequencing, using the sizing rules in the shared
framework. A strong score alone does not override a blocking constraint, low
evidence confidence, or an existing canonical SSOT ICP.

If an approved SSOT ICP conflicts with the lead, state the conflict and route it for SSOT review. Do not change the canonical ICP here.

## Buyer delta: current market vs new market
| Dimension | Current-market buyer | New-market buyer | What it changes | Label |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Role and budget owner | | | | |
| Trigger event | | | | |
| Evaluation process | | | | |
| Alternatives today | | | | |
| Compliance and procurement | | | | |

## Channel and regulatory constraints
| Constraint | Type (channel / regulatory) | Effect on entry | Blocking? | Label |
|---|---|---|---|---|

## Top three entry risks (ranked by impact)
| Rank | Risk | If true | How to test it | Label |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | | | |
| 2 | | | | |
| 3 | | | | |

## Evidence gaps (top five)
[Ranked table from ../_shared/evidence-gaps.md: item, label, why it matters, how to resolve, owner, resolve by.]

## Questions that would change the call
[2 or 3 questions, each with which way the answer moves the recommendation.]

Common Failure Modes

• Opening with market background instead of the recommendation.
• A TAM, SAM, or SOM with no label, or a round number with no basis.
• Filling a missing figure with an estimate that is not labeled Assumed.
• Dropping a section because evidence is thin, instead of labeling it Gap.
• Treating the new buyer as the current buyer with a new logo.
• Risks listed but not ranked, or ranked by likelihood instead of impact.
• Recommending Go while a constraint blocks entry.
• "It depends" in place of Go, Explore, or Pass.

After Delivering

For PMC-originated work, return findings/proposals to PMC instead of saving bootstrap sections. For standalone work, offer to save the proposed market definition and buyer delta to .agents/product-marketing-context.md. Route each gap using the shared owner table, not customer-research indiscriminately. If the call is Go, suggest positioning-strategy as the next step (Rung 2 of ../_shared/launch-stages.md). If the call is Explore, route the top gap to its actual domain owner.

Output Rules

• No em dashes in output.

Related Skills

• positioning-strategy: Position the product for the market this brief chooses
• icp-and-buyer-personas: Profile the buyers and committee inside the chosen market
• customer-research: Close the evidence gaps the brief names
• competitor-profiling: Map the alternatives buyers use in the new market
• launch-strategy: Plan the launch once positioning is set