Value prop and positioning

Explain why a defined buyer would choose this offer over a credible alternative, using differences the evidence supports.

The alternative that matters most is often no change: the spreadsheet, the manual workaround, the in-house tool they already paid for.

Alternative. "Ops VPs keep the spreadsheet because it is already in the Friday review. We win when missed handoffs have a named cost and a named owner. We lose when the pain is 'it would be nicer to have a system.'"

Slogan. "The AI-powered platform of record for modern operations teams."

If you cannot name what the buyer would do instead, you do not have positioning yet.

Inputs

Reuse supplied context first. If a missing company fact would change the result, check the relevant sections of .enablement/context.md when available. Preserve source dates and approval limits.

Ask only for what changes the thesis:

1. Who is buying, and what job they are trying to finish
2. What they use or consider instead, including no change
3. The capability that is actually different, and how it produces an outcome
4. Approved proof and claim limits

Do not turn an unverified hypothesis into an external outcome claim.

Supporting material

Read references/positioning-canvas.md for thesis modes, the alternatives map, and the differentiation chain. Skip it if the user already has a canvas and only wants a rewrite.

Procedure

1. Name the buyer task. Trigger, progress sought, current approach, decision criteria, cost of staying put. Done when you can say why this is a decision, not a feature launch.
2. Map real alternatives. Only options there is evidence for. Include no change. Do not invent a competitor set to fill a table.
3. Build the differentiation chain. Capability, mechanism, buyer outcome, proof. Drop claims that are only different in wording. "AI-powered" and "easy" are not chains.
4. Choose a thesis mode. Evidence-backed, product-demonstrable without an outcome claim, or internal hypothesis with no external use. Write only the pillars that mode can support.
5. Translate by decision role. Change the task, criterion, outcome, proof, and risk, not just the vocabulary.
6. Add why-now only when a real trigger, cost of delay, or decision window exists.
7. State who this is not for, and which claims you cannot support.

For live lines use talk-track-builder. For compete guidance use battlecard-builder. For objection systems use objection-library-builder.

What to return

For a narrow rewrite, preserve the established strategy and return the revised language with any material evidence gap. Use the full framework below when the positioning itself needs development.

• Thesis, labeled with its mode
• Buyer task and decision criteria
• Alternatives map, including no change when relevant
• Differentiation chain
• Role-specific value, where the job actually changes
• Why-now only if earned
• Disqualification and unsupported claims
• Proof ledger with source, freshness, and permission
• Assumptions, if you had to make any

Quality bar

Retain strong existing language. A wording change should improve clarity, relevance, or evidence fidelity rather than merely sound different.

• The thesis dies if you remove the alternative.
• Each pillar links task, mechanism, outcome, and proof.
• Role versions change the decision, not the adjectives.
• No manufactured urgency.
• A seller can reuse this without rewriting it into English.