Tam Reflected Understanding

TAM Reflected Understanding: Mirror a Leader's Reality

Generate a reflected understanding document for a single movement leader. This is a second-person ("you") document that speaks the leader's reality back to them — familiar, true, with edges that deepen. It is the document that makes them say "you get me."

Invocation

/tam-reflected-understanding $ARGUMENTS

Arguments:

• A leader's full name. Examples:
  • /tam-reflected-understanding Brad Brisco
  • /tam-reflected-understanding Mark Sayers

Before Starting

1. Read the canonical template at the movemental-ai repo: _docs/_prompts/generate-reflected-understanding.md — this defines the required structure
2. Read the Alan Hirsch exemplar at: _docs/_prompts/alan-hirsch-reflected-understanding.md (in the movemental-ai repo) — this is the gold standard for tone, length, and pattern
3. Check for existing profile research at intelligence/leader-research/profiles/[slug]/ in this repo
4. If no profile exists, run /tam-profile [name] first or gather research via web search

Required Sources

The reflected understanding must be grounded in verified research, not assumptions. Use these sources in order of priority:

1. Existing profile at intelligence/leader-research/profiles/[slug]/ (summary, gap-analysis, content-analysis, movemental-fit, affiliations)
2. Live web research — their website, books, social media, published interviews, podcast appearances
3. Existing TAM data — master list entry, candidate profile in 02-CANDIDATE-PROFILES.md

Never invent facts. If information isn't available (e.g., royalty details, specific revenue), either omit or phrase generally ("your publisher," "your current digital reach") without fabricating numbers.

Document Structure

Write in second person ("you") throughout. The reader IS the leader. Use the common frame (what all movement leaders share) + dynamic details (their specific facts).

Section 1: Title and Intent

# [Full Name]: Reflected Understanding

A concise reflection spoken back so the language could be endorsed — familiar, but with edges that deepen.

Section 2: Calling

• Common: Success is formation and multiplication; not selling a brand; thinking in terms of movement
• Dynamic: THIS leader's framing, language, role, orgs, books, primary contribution
• One short paragraph

Section 3: Audience

• Common: Movement-oriented; multiplication, sentness, formation; mix of pastors, academics, practitioners, international
• Dynamic: THIS leader's personas (2-4 bullets if research supports), their TAM or gap (who knows them vs who would be formed if they found the work)
• One short paragraph + optional persona bullets

Section 4: Existing Content (Before the Platform We're Building)

• Common: They already have a body of work; gap is circulation and coherence; offline vs online; silos; the work doesn't "move"
• Dynamic: THIS leader's exact locations (sites, books, orgs, conferences, podcasts), main digital asset, content forms and themes
• NOTs list: Only the NOTs that apply to THIS leader with THEIR examples:
  • Not translated
  • Not structured/repurposed
  • Not interconnected
  • Not owned/unified
  • Not legible to systems
  • Not optimized for discoverability (SEO/GEO)
  • Not connected to AI that reflects their voice
• End with: "Movemental is built to speak to these NOTs so your content can move."
• One or two short paragraphs + the NOT list

Section 5: Constraints

• Common: Time and attention are the limit; at capacity; cannot become full-time content operator; the issue is capacity, not desire
• Dynamic: THIS leader's roles and time sinks, budget reality
• One short paragraph

Section 6: Commerce

• Common: No obvious viable path; trade publishing vs "own platform"; the system isn't built for people like them
• Dynamic: THIS leader's publisher, current digital revenue, real commerce (authority driving speaking, consulting, training)
• One short paragraph

Section 7: Credibility (summation)

• Common: Offline/in-the-room credibility is high; online it's partial, fragmented, invisible; gap wasn't fixable before without agencies/budgets/time; now possible
• Dynamic: THIS leader's "in the room" vs "online" reality
• One short paragraph

Section 8: Closing

One sentence: "This document is a reflected understanding for [Full Name], grounded in research and documentation, intended to be right to the point, true, and valuable."

Output

File path: intelligence/leader-research/reflected-understandings/[slug].md

Example: intelligence/leader-research/reflected-understandings/mark-sayers.md

Quality Checklist

Before saving:

• Every claim is supported by research (no invented stats, deals, or roles)
• Second person ("you") throughout; no "leaders like you" or generic phrasing where the leader's name or detail fits
• Each section uses the common frame THEN the dynamic detail
• NOTs list only includes items that apply to THIS leader with THEIR examples
• Markdown is clean (headings, bullets, bold/italic matching the Alan Hirsch example)
• The document feels both shared and personal — they should feel part of a cohort, not a generic template
• Tone is respectful, honest, and slightly prophetic — not salesy, not flattering, not clinical

Key Rules

1. Never fabricate. If you don't have specific data, phrase at a general level or omit.
2. This is NOT a sales pitch. It's a mirror. The leader should recognize themselves, not feel sold to.
3. Common + Dynamic pattern is mandatory. Lead with shared truth, complete with specific facts.
4. Use "you" with concrete detail, never "leaders like you."
5. The NOTs are the operational core — they show the leader exactly what Movemental solves for them specifically.
6. Requires research first. If no profile exists in intelligence/leader-research/profiles/[slug]/, either run /tam-profile first or conduct sufficient web research to ground every claim.
7. Alan Hirsch's reflected understanding is the benchmark. Match its tone, depth, and specificity.
8. One leader per document. Never batch multiple leaders into one reflected understanding.