Movemental Narrative Audit

Movemental narrative alignment audit

Use this skill when the goal is strategic and editorial alignment — not pixel-level design QA. For full UI/design/conversion audits, run page-audit after or in parallel.

Ground truth — read before judging

Establish shared vocabulary from these artifacts (read what is relevant to the page under audit; at minimum skim the starred items):

Do not invent Movemental doctrine. If a claim is not supported by the above after reading, flag it as unsupported or drift.

North star (synthesis — verify against sources)

1. Problem frame: Organizations and leaders pay a fragmentation tax on two intelligences — informational (corpus, frameworks, media, data) and relational (people, trust, communication graph). Fixes framed only as “content” or “tools” misread the structure.
2. Offer frame: Movemental is digital infrastructure (foundation: library, graph, voice, pathways), not “a website” or generic AI content — AI amplifies grounded corpus, it does not replace voice or relationship.
3. Progress model: Six ordered stages — Fragmentation → Integration → Activation → Formation → Multiplication → Movement. Skipping Integration produces fluent surface without load-bearing foundation; most stalls are Fragmentation → Integration.
4. Moral / credibility frame: Credibility that survives AI noise is embedded in networks of verified humans (scenius); formation requires relationship at the seam with information.
5. Product principles (from canonical articles): e.g. formation over pure growth, humans-over-hacks, technology ordered under mission — only cite principles explicitly present in the artifacts you read.

Audit dimensions

Score each Aligned / Partial / Misaligned / N/A with one sentence of evidence (quote or section id).

1. Copy — language and claims

• Headlines and CTAs use shared vocabulary (fragmentation, integration, foundation, pathway, corpus, formation, etc.) consistently with home + fragmentation story, or deliberately define new terms.
• No false sequencing (e.g. promising “movement” or “multiplication” while ignoring integration).
• Audience (movement leader, nonprofit, church, institution) is explicit where the page is audience-specific.

2. Narrative — arc and tension

• Clear problem → reframe → mechanism → proof/next step (editorial arc may vary by page type).
• Stakes match the book’s diagnosis (tax, dual fragmentation, AI visibility) without exaggeration.
• CTA matches funnel stage (e.g. education vs contact vs product).

3. Framework — mental model integrity

• Two intelligences invoked correctly when the page is about org capacity, AI, or “systems.”
• Six stages named in correct order if referenced; dependencies respected (no “activation” without integrated foundation).
• Distinguish symptoms (more content, new tool) from foundation work when prescribing fixes.

4. Business model — positioning

• Infrastructure / ownership / network claims align with the-story-of-movemental.md and home metadata — no contradictions with curated network, leader revenue, or transparency themes unless intentionally scoped.
• Pricing, services, or “how it works” pages tie outcomes to integration → downstream stages, not magic AI.

5. Design charter overlap (light touch)

• If copy fights DESIGN.md pillars (e.g. hype that breaks “trust through inspectability”), note under Copy or Narrative — defer visual token violations to page-audit.

Workflow

1. Identify route + primary content files (page.tsx, section components, docs/content if MD-driven).
2. Load starred ground-truth files above (and domain articles if applicable).
3. Extract the page’s implied thesis, audience, stage emphasis, and CTAs.
4. Score the five dimensions; list drift patterns (generic SaaS, tool-first, AI-replacement, skip-integration, etc.).
5. Recommend re-alignment: prioritized bullets — rewrite (exact placement: hero, section X), restructure (move proof earlier), add link (fragmentation, evidence), remove claim.
6. Optional fix prompt — short block the user can paste to an agent: goal, files, non-negotiables, forbidden phrases.

Output template

# Narrative alignment audit — <Page title / route>

## Executive read
[2–3 sentences: who this page is for, what it currently “says,” biggest gap vs canonical story]

## Ground truth cited
- [List files actually read]

## Dimension scores
| Dimension | Score | Notes |
| --------- | ----- | ----- |
| Copy | | |
| Narrative | | |
| Framework | | |
| Business model | | |
| Design charter (copy-level) | | |

## Findings (prioritized)
### Must fix (misleading or off-model)
### Should improve (partial alignment)
### Optional polish

## Re-alignment recommendations
1. …
2. …

## Agent fix prompt (optional)
[Paste-ready block]

Related skills

• page-audit — UI, DESIGN.md tokens, Stitch fidelity, technical architecture.
• design-audit — Broader DESIGN.md compliance.
• pathway-audit / article-audit — When the target is a pathway or longform article specifically.

Additional reference

For a longer article index and example drift patterns, see reference.md.