Narrative Building

Purpose

Produce an elite-tier Strategic Narrative Document that constructs the story making a product, feature, or strategy feel inevitable — not by assertion but by structural argument. The output is not a tagline or a slide deck outline; it is a narrative engineering system: a structural spine, audience-adapted variants, evidence-integrated claims, pre-embedded objection responses, and a testing protocol that validates the narrative before it goes live.

When to Use / When NOT to Use

Use this skill when:

• Positioning a new product or repositioning an existing one in a competitive market
• Preparing a board deck, investor pitch, or executive strategy narrative
• Writing the "why now" story for a product launch or market entry
• Crafting the internal alignment narrative ("here's why we're doing this and not that")
• Building a launch narrative for press, analyst briefings, or customer communications
• Translating competitive analysis findings into a positioning story (downstream of Competitive Analysis)
• A product has strong fundamentals but the story isn't landing with stakeholders or customers

Do NOT use this skill when:

• You need competitive analysis (use Competitive & Market Analysis skill first — this skill consumes its output, it does not produce it)
• You need to define what to build (use Specification Writing skill — narrative follows strategy, not the other way around)
• You need customer discovery or research synthesis (use Discovery & Research skill — that's primary research, this is narrative construction from existing inputs)
• You need metric design or success measurement (use Metric Design & Experimentation skill)
• You need a tagline, slogan, or brand identity system (this skill produces strategic narrative, not copy)

Anti-inputs (what this skill does NOT handle):

• Customer interview synthesis (-> Discovery & Research skill)
• Competitive landscape mapping (-> Competitive & Market Analysis skill)
• Product specification (-> Specification Writing skill)
• Marketing copy, ad copy, or social media content (-> copywriting, not strategic narrative)
• Visual design for presentations (this produces the narrative structure; design is a separate discipline)

Format Rules (Read First)

These rules govern every output produced by this codex. They are not style preferences — they are quality enforcement mechanisms derived from benchmarking against investment-grade narrative documents and positioning work.

1. Take positions. Never hedge with weasel words. "Likely," "may," "could," and "seems" are banned from narrative claims. Flag uncertainty with explicit confidence levels: H (>70% confident), M (40-70%), L (<40%). Example: "The shift to hybrid work has permanently expanded the market for async collaboration tools (H)" not "Hybrid work may be creating opportunities for async tools."

2. Per-cell evidence tier annotation is mandatory in all comparison matrices and claim tables. Every cell in an audience adaptation matrix, competitive narrative comparison, or evidence integration table must carry an inline evidence tier tag: (T1), (T2), (T3) etc. Where evidence is absent: (T6: assertion). A matrix with untagged cells is incomplete.

3. The O->I->R->C->W cascade applies to ALL narrative recommendations, not just final sections. Format: Observation [evidence tier] -> Implication [mechanism] -> Response [specific narrative action] -> Confidence [H/M/L + assumption] -> Watch Indicator [observable signal that the narrative is or isn't landing].

4. Begin with Context Fitness Check and Framework Selection (Step 0 / Step 0b) before applying any framework. Identify the narrative type; select the 3-5 load-bearing frameworks; note which to skip. Applying all 8 frameworks to a simple launch narrative dilutes signal and inflates length.

5. Contradictions between frameworks are signal, not noise. When Positioning analysis suggests one category and Competitive Narrative Analysis reveals the category is already owned by a competitor, surface the contradiction explicitly and state which to weight more heavily and why.

6. Flag time-sensitive claims. Any claim based on data older than 6 months must carry [POTENTIALLY STALE -- verify before presenting]. Market shifts, competitor moves, and regulatory changes erode narrative foundations. Tier labels alone are insufficient; recency matters independently of source quality.

7. Flag thin-evidence conclusions. If a key narrative claim rests only on Tier 4-6 evidence, prepend it with [EVIDENCE-LIMITED: validate with Tier 1-2 before using in external-facing narrative].

8. Every framework reference gets a one-line contextual explanation the first time it appears. Not "April Dunford's Positioning Framework" but "Dunford's framework for defining what makes your product the best choice for a specific customer in a specific context -- we use it here to identify the positioning that makes competitors irrelevant rather than merely inferior." The framework name is for the author's rigor. The reader needs to know why this lens matters for their narrative.

9. The document must be navigable by someone who didn't create it. Include a reading guide (by time and by role), a notation key, and layered depth. A VP should be able to read only the Executive Narrative and use it verbatim. A PM should be able to read through the audience-adapted variants and select the right one. A comms lead should be able to dive into the evidence integration and testing protocol. No reader should encounter unexplained notation.

Output Template (Mandatory Document Skeleton)

Every Strategic Narrative Document MUST follow this exact structure. Copy this skeleton and fill it in. Do not reorder sections, skip sections, or invent new top-level sections. If a framework was skipped in Step 0, note "Skipped -- not load-bearing for this narrative type" in that section.

# Strategic Narrative Document: [Subject -- e.g., "Vanta Analytics Launch Positioning"]

> **Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD] | **Confidence band:** [Overall H/M/L] | **Staleness window:** [Date after which key claims need revalidation]

---

## Executive Narrative

[5-7 sentences max. This IS the narrative -- a VP reads only this and uses it verbatim in their next meeting. No framework names, no jargon, no evidence tier tags. Plain language that makes the product/strategy feel inevitable. Structure: tension -> shift -> opportunity -> your role -> proof -> call to action. Final sentence = the recommended positioning statement in bold.]

---

## How to Read This Document

**What this is:** A narrative engineering system -- not a tagline or a slide deck. It constructs the structural argument for why this product/strategy is inevitable, adapts it for every audience, weaves in evidence, anticipates objections, and provides a testing protocol.

**Reading by time available:**

| Time | Read | You'll get |
|---|---|---|
| **5 min** | Executive Narrative only | The story itself -- ready to use in a meeting |
| **15 min** | Executive Narrative + Narrative Arc (section 1) + Audience Variants (section 4) | The story + its structural logic + which version to use for which audience |
| **30 min** | Full document through Recommendations | Complete narrative system with evidence, objection handling, and competitive positioning |
| **Deep dive** | Everything including Appendix | Full framework applications, testing protocol, assumption stress-testing |

**Reading by role:**

| Role | Start with | Then read | Skip unless curious |
|---|---|---|---|
| VP / Exec | Executive Narrative | Audience Variants (section 4) for their specific context | Everything else -- the narrative is ready to use |
| PM Lead | Executive Narrative | Narrative Arc (section 1), Positioning (section 2), Why Now (section 3), Objection Handling (section 6) | Testing Protocol, Competitive Narrative deep dive |
| Comms / Marketing | Executive Narrative | Audience Variants (section 4), Evidence Integration (section 5), Testing Protocol (section 8) | Framework theory sections |
| Strategy / Analyst | Full document in order | Cross-Framework Contradictions, Adversarial Self-Critique | Nothing -- this is your primary artifact |

---

## Notation Key

**Confidence levels** -- applied to every narrative claim:
- **H (>70% confident)** -- Strong evidence supports this claim. Build the narrative on it.
- **M (40-70%)** -- Direction is probable but evidence is mixed. Use in narrative but flag internally as requiring validation.
- **L (<40%)** -- This is a hypothesis, not a finding. Do not use in external-facing narrative without further evidence.

**Evidence tiers** -- how we know what we claim to know (tagged inline as T1-T6):
- **T1** -- Quantitative proof: revenue data, usage metrics, market share, SEC filings (strongest)
- **T2** -- Customer evidence: testimonials, case studies with measurable outcomes
- **T3** -- Third-party validation: analyst reports, press coverage, awards, expert endorsements
- **T4** -- Logical argument: well-structured reasoning from accepted premises
- **T5** -- Analogies and precedents: "this worked for X, so it should work here"
- **T6** -- Vision/assertion: claims about the future without supporting data (weakest)

**Narrative element ratings:**
- **Strong** -- Element is compelling, evidence-backed, and structurally sound
- **Adequate** -- Element exists but could be strengthened with better evidence or sharper framing
- **Weak/Missing** -- Element is absent or unconvincing; narrative has a structural gap here

**Recommendation format** (O->I->R->C->W):
- **O**bservation -- What we see (with evidence tier)
- **I**mplication -- Why it matters for the narrative (the mechanism)
- **R**esponse -- What to do (specific narrative action + owner + timeline)
- **C**onfidence -- How sure we are (H/M/L + key assumption)
- **W**atch -- How to know if the narrative is landing or failing (observable signal)

**Flags:**
- `[POTENTIALLY STALE]` -- Source data is >6 months old; verify before using in narrative
- `[EVIDENCE-LIMITED]` -- Claim rests on T4-T6 evidence only; validate with stronger data before external use

---

## Step 0: Context Fitness Check

Before selecting frameworks, verify that a Strategic Narrative Document is the right artifact for this question.

| Question | If Yes | If No |
|---|---|---|
| **Do you have a clear product/strategy to narrate, or are you still deciding what to build?** | Proceed to Framework Selection | A narrative is premature. Use Problem Framing or Discovery first. Narrative without substance is spin. |
| **Do you have competitive analysis or market context as input?** | Narrative can incorporate competitive positioning and "why now" with evidence | Flag prominently: "This narrative is constructed without competitive context. Positioning claims are hypotheses -- validate against competitive landscape before external use." |
| **Is the primary goal external (market-facing) or internal (alignment)?** | External: weight Positioning, Audience Adaptation, Evidence Integration heavily. Internal: weight Narrative Arc, Why Now, Objection Anticipation heavily. | Both: produce both variants explicitly; they differ in emphasis, evidence standards, and tone. |
| **Do you have access to customer evidence (testimonials, case studies, usage data)?** | Narrative can use T1-T2 evidence for claims | Flag: "Narrative evidence is limited to T3-T6. Claims will need customer proof points before customer-facing use." |

**If any answer is "No":** State this prominently at the top of the Executive Narrative. Example: *"Note: This narrative is constructed without competitive analysis input. Positioning claims should be treated as hypotheses to be validated against the competitive landscape before external use."*

---

## Step 0b: Framework Selection

| Narrative type | Primary frameworks (apply in full) | Supporting frameworks (scan only) | Skipped (why) |
|---|---|---|---|
| [e.g., "Product launch positioning"] | [e.g., F1 Narrative Arc, F2 Positioning, F3 Why Now, F4 Audience Adaptation] | [e.g., F5 Evidence-Narrative Integration, F6 Objection Anticipation] | [e.g., "F7 Competitive Narrative Analysis -- no direct competitor narrative to reverse-engineer"] |

---

## 1. Narrative Arc

**Status Quo:** [What the world looks like today -- the tension the audience already feels]

**Disruption:** [What has changed -- the structural shift that makes the status quo untenable]

**New Reality:** [What the world looks like after the shift -- the inevitable destination]

**Your Role:** [How this product/strategy is the bridge from status quo to new reality]

**Proof:** [Evidence that this is already happening -- not aspirational, but demonstrated]

**Call to Action:** [What the audience should do next -- specific and immediate]

**Narrative Arc Scorecard:**

| Element | Score | Evidence Tier | Strength Assessment | Gap / Action Needed |
|---|:---:|:---:|---|---|
| Status Quo | 1-5 | TX | [Strong/Adequate/Weak] | [If <4, what's missing] |
| Disruption | 1-5 | TX | | |
| New Reality | 1-5 | TX | | |
| Your Role | 1-5 | TX | | |
| Proof | 1-5 | TX | | |
| Call to Action | 1-5 | TX | | |
| **Total** | X/30 | | | |

---

## 2. Positioning Analysis

**Competitive Alternatives:**

| Alternative | What customers do today instead | Why they switch away from it |
|---|---|---|
| [Alternative 1] | [behavior/product] (TX) | [pain point driving switch] |
| [Alternative 2] | | |
| [Alternative 3] | | |
| "Do nothing" | [current workaround] | [cost of inaction] |

**Unique Attributes:**

| Attribute | Why it matters | Evidence | Defensible? |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Attribute 1] | [value mechanism] | (TX) | H/M/L |
| [Attribute 2] | | | |
| [Attribute 3] | | | |

**Value Delivered:** [Specific, measurable value the customer receives -- not features, but outcomes]

**Target Customer:** [Specific segment with identifying characteristics an outsider could use to find them]

**Market Category Decision:**

| Option | Criteria | Score | Rationale |
|---|---|:---:|---|
| **Create new category** | No existing category captures your value; you'd be compared to wrong alternatives | H/M/L fit | [Why or why not] |
| **Enter existing category** | Category is understood; you win on differentiation within it | H/M/L fit | [Why or why not] |
| **Reframe existing category** | Category exists but the buying criteria are wrong for your strengths | H/M/L fit | [Why or why not] |

**Selected positioning:** [One sentence a new hire could repeat]

---

## 3. Why Now Analysis

**Structural Preconditions:**

| Precondition Type | Specific Shift | Evidence | Independently Verifiable? | Confidence |
|---|---|---|:---:|:---:|
| **Technology shift** | [What technology change enables this now?] | (TX) | Yes/No | H/M/L |
| **Market shift** | [What market dynamic changed?] | (TX) | Yes/No | H/M/L |
| **Regulatory shift** | [What regulatory change opened or closed a door?] | (TX) | Yes/No | H/M/L |
| **Behavioral shift** | [What user/buyer behavior changed?] | (TX) | Yes/No | H/M/L |

**Why Now Scoring Rubric:**

| Score | Criteria |
|:---:|---|
| **5 -- Irrefutable** | Multiple independently verifiable structural shifts converge. Anyone analyzing the market would reach the same "why now" conclusion. Evidence is T1-T2. |
| **4 -- Strong** | 2-3 structural shifts with strong evidence. Reasonable people might disagree on timing but not on direction. Evidence is T1-T3. |
| **3 -- Adequate** | 1-2 structural shifts with moderate evidence. The "why now" is defensible but not self-evident. Evidence is T2-T4. |
| **2 -- Weak** | Structural shift is asserted but not independently verifiable. "Why now" depends on the narrator's framing, not observable market conditions. Evidence is T4-T6. |
| **1 -- Missing** | No structural "why now." The product could have been built 5 years ago or 5 years from now with equal justification. The narrative relies on "we built it, therefore now." |

**Why Now Score:** [X/5] -- [one-sentence assessment]

**The "Not Too Early, Not Too Late" Test:**

| Question | Answer | Implication |
|---|---|---|
| Could this have succeeded 3 years ago? | [Yes/No + why] | If yes: you're late, and must explain what changed. If no: the structural shift is real. |
| Will this opportunity still exist in 3 years? | [Yes/No + why] | If yes: urgency argument is weak -- tighten it. If no: urgency is genuine. |
| Who else sees this timing? | [competitors/entrants] | If many: timing is obvious, differentiation must be on execution. If few: timing insight is a genuine advantage. |

---

## 4. Audience Adaptation Matrix

**Core narrative (invariant across audiences):** [2-3 sentences that never change regardless of audience]

| Dimension | Board / Investors | Engineering | Customers | Press / Analysts |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| **Lead with** | ROI + market size (TX) | Technical vision + feasibility (TX) | Value + trust (TX) | Novelty + significance (TX) |
| **Status Quo framing** | [market inefficiency / missed revenue] | [technical limitation / architecture gap] | [pain point / unmet need] | [industry trend / structural shift] |
| **Disruption framing** | [market shift creating window] | [technology breakthrough enabling solution] | [new possibility for their workflow] | [paradigm change in the category] |
| **Proof type that resonates** | Revenue data, market share, unit economics | Architecture decisions, performance benchmarks, tech stack | Case studies, testimonials, measurable outcomes | First-mover data, analyst validation, adoption velocity |
| **Call to action** | [Approve investment / fund next phase] | [Commit to building this architecture] | [Try the product / expand usage] | [Cover this story / include in report] |
| **Objections to pre-address** | [ROI timeline, competitive risk, market size] | [Technical debt, feasibility, team capacity] | [Switching cost, risk, learning curve] | [Is this real or hype? Who else validates?] |
| **Tone** | Confident, data-driven, opportunity-sized | Honest, technically rigorous, vision-forward | Empathetic, outcome-focused, trustworthy | Authoritative, contextual, non-promotional |
| **Evidence standard** | T1-T2 required; T3 acceptable for market sizing | T1 (benchmarks) + T4 (architecture reasoning) | T2 (testimonials) + T1 (measurable outcomes) | T3 (expert validation) + T1 (data proof) |

**Audience-Specific Narrative Variants:**

### Board / Investor Variant
[Full narrative adapted for this audience -- 1 paragraph max, using their proof types, tone, and lead]

### Engineering Variant
[Full narrative adapted for this audience]

### Customer Variant
[Full narrative adapted for this audience]

### Press / Analyst Variant
[Full narrative adapted for this audience]

---

## 5. Evidence-Narrative Integration

**Claim-Evidence-Implication Chain:**

| # | Narrative Claim | Evidence | Tier | Implication for Audience | Integration Method |
|---|---|---|:---:|---|---|
| 1 | [claim made in the narrative] | [specific data point or proof] | TX | [so what -- why this evidence matters to the reader] | [Embedded in narrative / Footnoted / Callout box] |
| 2 | | | | | |
| 3 | | | | | |
| 4 | | | | | |
| 5 | | | | | |

**Evidence Density Assessment:**

| Narrative Section | Claims Made | Claims with T1-T2 Evidence | Claims with T3-T4 Evidence | Claims with T5-T6 Only | Evidence Gap? |
|---|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| Status Quo | X | X | X | X | Yes/No |
| Disruption | | | | | |
| New Reality | | | | | |
| Your Role | | | | | |
| Proof | | | | | |

**Anti-Pattern Check:**

| Anti-Pattern | Present? | Fix |
|---|:---:|---|
| **Data dump without narrative thread** -- evidence is listed but not woven into a story. Reader sees numbers but not meaning. | Yes/No | Each data point must answer "so what?" in the context of the narrative arc. Data serves story; story does not serve data. |
| **Narrative without data support** -- story is compelling but no claims are backed by evidence. Reader is persuaded but cannot defend the argument. | Yes/No | Every claim in the arc that a skeptic would challenge must have at least T3 evidence. External-facing claims require T1-T2. |
| **Evidence-claim mismatch** -- the evidence cited does not actually support the claim being made. Correlation presented as causation, or adjacent data used for a different point. | Yes/No | For each claim-evidence pair, ask: "Does this evidence DIRECTLY support this specific claim, or is it merely related?" |

---

## 6. Objection Anticipation & Pre-Response

**Objection Inventory:**

| # | Objection (steelmanned) | Probability of Being Raised | Severity if Unaddressed | Difficulty of Response | Priority Score |
|---|---|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| 1 | [strongest version of the objection -- argue it as forcefully as the objector would] | H/M/L | H/M/L | H/M/L | [sum] |
| 2 | | | | | |
| 3 | | | | | |
| 4 | | | | | |
| 5 | | | | | |

**Priority Scoring:**
- H = 3, M = 2, L = 1
- Priority = Probability + Severity + Difficulty
- Score 7-9: Must be pre-embedded in narrative. Score 4-6: Prepare response but embed only if space allows. Score 3: Monitor but do not address preemptively.

**Pre-Embedded Responses:**

**Objection 1: [Title]**
- **Steelmanned objection:** [The strongest version of this argument against you]
- **Pre-embedded response:** [How the narrative addresses this WITHOUT sounding defensive -- the response is woven into the story, not appended as a rebuttal]
- **Where in narrative:** [Which section of the arc naturally addresses this]
- **Evidence supporting response:** (TX) [specific proof]
- **If pressed further:** [The deeper response for follow-up questions]

**Objection 2: [Title]**
[Same structure]

**Objection 3: [Title]**
[Same structure]

---

## 7. Competitive Narrative Analysis

**Competitor Narrative Reverse-Engineering:**

| Dimension | Competitor A | Competitor B | Competitor C | Your Narrative |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| **Their story in one sentence** | [what they claim] (TX) | | | [what you claim] |
| **Status quo they attack** | [the tension they highlight] | | | [the tension you highlight] |
| **Disruption they claim** | [their "why now"] | | | [your "why now"] |
| **Proof they offer** | [their evidence type and quality] | | | [your evidence type and quality] |
| **Category they claim** | [how they frame the market] | | | [how you frame the market] |
| **Audience they optimize for** | [who their narrative targets first] | | | [who your narrative targets first] |

**Narrative Strength Comparison:**

| Element | Competitor A | Competitor B | Your Narrative | Gap / Advantage |
|---|:---:|:---:|:---:|---|
| Status Quo resonance | 1-5 (TX) | 1-5 (TX) | 1-5 (TX) | [where you win/lose] |
| Disruption credibility | 1-5 (TX) | 1-5 (TX) | 1-5 (TX) | |
| Proof strength | 1-5 (TX) | 1-5 (TX) | 1-5 (TX) | |
| Why Now clarity | 1-5 (TX) | 1-5 (TX) | 1-5 (TX) | |
| Audience fit | 1-5 (TX) | 1-5 (TX) | 1-5 (TX) | |

**Narrative Gaps to Exploit:**

| Competitor Gap | Why It Exists | How Your Narrative Exploits It | Risk of Them Closing It |
|---|---|---|---|
| [specific weakness in their story] | [structural reason] (TX) | [your narrative move] | H/M/L |
| | | | |

**Narrative Collision Points:**

Where your narrative and a competitor's narrative make directly contradictory claims -- these are the battlegrounds where the audience must choose which story to believe.

| Collision Point | Their Claim | Your Claim | Evidence Advantage | Resolution for Audience |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [specific contested territory] | [what they say] (TX) | [what you say] (TX) | [who has stronger evidence?] | [why the audience should believe your version] |

---

## 8. Narrative Testing Protocol

**Pre-Launch Validation Tests:**

| Test | Method | Pass Criteria | Fail Signal | Action on Fail |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| **"Say It Back" Test** | Tell narrative to 5 people. Ask them to repeat it back in their own words within 24 hours. | >=4 of 5 can reproduce the core argument (not word-for-word, but structurally accurate) | <3 of 5 can reproduce it | Narrative is too complex or unmemorable. Simplify the arc. Reduce to fewer, stronger claims. |
| **"So What" Test** | After delivering the narrative, ask: "So what should I do about this?" | Audience names a specific action aligned with your call to action | Audience says "interesting" but names no action, or names the wrong action | Call to action is unclear or disconnected from the narrative arc. Strengthen the bridge from proof to action. |
| **"Why Should I Care" Test** | Deliver the narrative to someone outside the target audience. Ask: "Why would [target audience] care about this?" | Outsider can articulate the audience's motivation correctly | Outsider cannot identify why the target cares | Status Quo section is not resonating -- the tension is not universal enough or is framed in insider language. |
| **"What Would Change Your Mind" Test** | Ask a friendly skeptic: "What evidence would make you disbelieve this narrative?" | Skeptic names specific, falsifiable conditions that are not currently true | Skeptic names conditions that ARE currently true | Narrative contains a claim that is already falsified. Remove or reframe immediately. |
| **"Borrowed Story" Test** | Replace your company name with a competitor's. Does the narrative still work? | Narrative breaks -- it depends on YOUR unique attributes, evidence, and positioning | Narrative works equally well for a competitor | Narrative is generic. Return to Positioning (F2) and strengthen unique attributes. |

**Narrative Testing Scorecard:**

| Test | Result | Score (1-5) | Action |
|---|---|:---:|---|
| Say It Back | [pass/fail + detail] | | [if <4, specific fix] |
| So What | | | |
| Why Should I Care | | | |
| What Would Change Your Mind | | | |
| Borrowed Story | | | |
| **Total** | | X/25 | |

**Scoring Guide:**
- 20-25: Narrative is ready for external use
- 15-19: Narrative needs targeted strengthening before external use
- 10-14: Narrative has structural issues; revisit arc and positioning
- <10: Narrative requires fundamental rework

---

## 9. Strategic Narrative Recommendations (O->I->R->C->W Cascade)

**Recommendation 1: [Title]**
- **Observation** [TX]: [What we see in the narrative analysis]
- **Implication**: [Why it matters for the narrative's effectiveness]
- **Response**: [Specific narrative action + owner + timeline]
- **Confidence**: [H/M/L] -- assumes [key assumption]
- **Watch**: [Observable signal that this narrative move is working or failing]

**Recommendation 2: [Title]**
- **Observation** [TX]: ...
- **Implication**: ...
- **Response**: ...
- **Confidence**: ...
- **Watch**: ...

**Recommendation 3: [Title]**
[Same structure]

---

## Cross-Framework Contradictions

| Contradiction | Framework A says | Framework B says | Resolution / Which to weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| [e.g., "Category choice vs. competitive narrative"] | [Positioning: create new category] | [Competitive Narrative: competitor already owns that framing] | [Which matters more and why] |

---

## Assumption Registry

| # | Assumption | Framework it underpins | Confidence | Evidence | What would invalidate this |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | | H/M/L | (TX) | |
| 2 | | | H/M/L | (TX) | |
| 3 | | | H/M/L | (TX) | |

---

## Adversarial Self-Critique

**Weakness 1: [Title]**
[Steelmanned argument against the narrative. What assumption is made? What evidence would disprove it? Scenario where this narrative backfires catastrophically.]

**Weakness 2: [Title]**
[Same depth]

**Weakness 3: [Title]**
[Same depth]

---

## Revision Triggers

| Trigger | What to re-assess | Timeline |
|---|---|---|
| [Observable event] | [Which sections break] | [When to check] |

---

## Sources

[All sources cited in the analysis, with evidence tier and date.]

Rules for using this template:

1. Do not skip sections. If a section isn't applicable, write "Skipped -- [reason]" and move on.
2. Every table cell with a claim, rating, or comparison must have an evidence tier tag -- (T1) through (T6).
3. Section headers are conclusions, not labels. Replace generic headers (e.g., "Positioning Analysis") with insight headers (e.g., "We Own the Workflow Category -- Competitors Own the Dashboard Category") after completing the section.
4. The Executive Narrative is written last but appears first. Do not write it until all sections are complete.
5. Audience variants are not optional. A narrative without audience adaptation is a one-audience narrative (FM-4). Produce at least 3 variants.

Domain Frameworks

This section IS the knowledge weapon. Each framework is encoded with its scoring rubrics, decision tables, and application methodology -- not merely referenced. A PM using this skill produces narrative documents that withstand scrutiny, adapt to audiences, and pre-empt objections; without these frameworks, the output degrades to a slide deck outline.

Framework 1: Narrative Arc Construction (F1)

The structural spine of every strategic narrative. A compelling narrative is not a list of features or a collection of data points -- it is a story with a specific structural shape that creates tension, resolves it, and positions your product as the inevitable resolution.

The Six-Element Arc:

Scoring Rubric -- Per Element:

Arc Quality Thresholds:

The Inevitability Test:

The strongest narratives make the product feel inevitable -- not because the narrator says so, but because the structural argument leaves no other conclusion. Test your arc:

Decision Table -- Arc Construction:

Framework 2: Positioning Framework (F2)

Inspired by April Dunford's positioning methodology -- the systematic process of defining what makes your product the obvious choice for a specific customer in a specific context. Positioning is not messaging; it is the strategic decision about how the product will be perceived. Messaging follows positioning; never the reverse.

The Five Positioning Components:

Category Decision Table:

Positioning Strength Rubric:

Framework 3: "Why Now" Framework (F3)

The most common narrative failure is differentiation without timing. "We're better" is not a narrative. "We're better, AND the structural conditions that make this matter just arrived" is a narrative. The "Why Now" framework identifies the structural preconditions that make this moment uniquely right -- not marketing urgency, but genuine structural timing.

The Four Structural Preconditions:

…(truncated)