Landing Copy Mechanism

Landing Copy: Mechanism (how it works)

This section earns the claim the headline made and the hero section named. Its job is explanation, not evidence — "here is how this changes your situation," not "here is why you should believe it changes your situation" (that's landing-copy-proof). A mechanism section that leans on stats or testimonials instead of actually explaining the how has borrowed proof's job instead of doing its own.

What this section answers

One question: how, specifically, does the product close the gap the problem section named? Specific enough that the reader could explain it back in one sentence. A mechanism explained so abstractly it could describe any competing product's approach unchanged has failed the swap test the same way an ungrounded adjective does.

The algorithm

Paragraph count from the beat count landing-sequencer assigned. Order within budget:

1. State the mechanism directly. The specific thing the product does — a feature, a process, a discipline — named plainly, in the same register the hero section used (no re-invention of terminology mid-page; if the hero section named it one way, this section uses the same name — no synonym cycling across section boundaries).
2. Connect it to the problem section's specific friction. Not a generic benefit statement — the mechanism resolving the exact cost the problem section named. This is the section's actual load-bearing sentence: if it could be deleted and the mechanism would still sound equally justified, it's not doing its job.
3. Land on the changed state. Close on what's now true for the reader that wasn't true before this section — the transformation completed, not a segue into proof or a preview of what's coming.

A 1-beat mechanism section compresses all three (state it, connect it, land the change) into one paragraph; a 3-beat section earns each its own paragraph, particularly when the mechanism has real internal steps worth walking through (in which case genuinely enumerable steps become a - list per landing-copywriter's output format, alongside the connecting prose — not instead of it).

Writing standard (scoped to this section)

• Apply landing-copywriter's full writing standard.
• No unnamed authority, here specifically. A mechanism section is the easiest place to reach for "proven approach" or "industry-standard method" without naming what makes it proven — if there's no named source, state the mechanism as the product's own claim, not a floated authority.
• List-shaped content only for genuine steps. If the mechanism has 3+ discrete, ordered steps, a numbered or bulleted list is correct per landing-copywriter's output format. If it's one continuous idea, keep it prose — don't force steps that don't exist to make the section look more substantial.
• No proof creep. A specific number, a named customer, a benchmark — all belong to landing-copy-proof. If a proof point is doing the persuading here instead of the mechanism's own logic, that's the wrong section carrying the weight.

Self-test

• The mechanism is named specifically enough to explain back in one sentence — not a category noun standing in for the actual thing (the same plain-verb discipline from landing-strategist's step 1).
• This section's central claim connects directly to the specific friction the problem section named, not a generic benefit.
• No proof point (stat, name, benchmark) appears here — that content is flagged to landing-copy-proof instead.
• The terminology matches whatever the hero section already named the mechanism — no synonym rotation across the section boundary.

Constraints

• Never lean on a proof point instead of an actual explanation — a mechanism section that's mostly a stat has skipped its own job.
• Never introduce new terminology for something already named in the hero section.
• Never turn a single continuous idea into a padded list to look more thorough — list only what's genuinely enumerable.