@lucapimenta/copy-chief-black 1.0.0

package/framework/copy-squad/checklists/abraham-strategy-multiplier.md

@@ -0,0 +1,416 @@
+# Abraham Strategy Multiplier Checklist
+
+> **Expert:** Jay Abraham
+> **Source:** Strategy of Preeminence, Getting Everything You Can Out of All You've Got, The Sticking Point Solution, 93 Extraordinary Referral Systems, Power Parthenon Strategy
+> **Use:** Audit and validate business strategy, offers, funnels, and copy through Abraham's strategic lens. Applicable to ANY offer before and during production.
+> **Reference:** `~/.claude/copy-squad/abraham.md` for full Voice DNA profile.
+> **Minimum passing scores indicated per section.**
+
+---
+
+## Section 1: Strategy of Preeminence Audit (12-Point)
+
+Every piece of copy and every offer must embody Preeminence.
+Minimum: 9/12 to pass. Below 9 = REWRITE with advisory positioning.
+
+| # | Check | Pass? | Why It Matters |
+|---|-------|-------|----------------|
+| 1 | [ ] **Client Language** -- The word "client" is used instead of "customer" throughout. Zero instances of "customer" in copy addressed to the buyer. | | "Customer" signals transaction. "Client" signals relationship. Abraham insists this distinction shapes the entire communication posture. |
+| 2 | [ ] **Trusted Advisor Tone** -- The copy reads like a recommendation from someone who genuinely cares about the reader's outcome, not like a pitch from someone trying to make a sale. | | People buy from advisors they trust. If the copy sounds like it's TRYING to sell, it's not Preeminent. The reader should feel protected, not pressured. |
+| 3 | [ ] **Exclusion Statement Present** -- The copy explicitly states who this is NOT for. At least one "This is not right for you if..." statement exists. | | Preeminence requires the courage to turn away the wrong buyers. Exclusion paradoxically increases trust and desire in the RIGHT buyers. |
+| 4 | [ ] **Empathy Before Prescription** -- The copy demonstrates deep understanding of the reader's situation BEFORE presenting any solution. Minimum 2 paragraphs of empathy. | | A doctor who prescribes before examining is a quack. An advisor who recommends before understanding is a salesperson. Empathy MUST come first. |
+| 5 | [ ] **Value Before Transaction** -- The copy delivers genuine value (insight, education, framework) BEFORE asking for anything in return. | | Preeminence means you start adding value before money changes hands. Free education demonstrates expertise and builds trust. |
+| 6 | [ ] **Against-Interest Statement** -- At least one moment where the copy recommends against the product for specific situations ("I wouldn't recommend this if..."). | | This is the most powerful trust builder. Saying "don't buy this if X" communicates supreme confidence and genuine care. |
+| 7 | [ ] **Outcome Focus Over Product Focus** -- The copy talks about the CLIENT'S desired outcome 3x more than it talks about the product's features. Count the ratio. | | Preeminent businesses are obsessed with client outcomes, not product features. The product is a VEHICLE, not the destination. |
+| 8 | [ ] **No Desperation Signals** -- Zero instances of: "limited time only" without logistic reason, fake scarcity, countdown timers without justification, or pressure language. | | Preeminence and desperation are incompatible. Every urgency element must have a genuine, explained REASON. |
+| 9 | [ ] **Leadership Position** -- The copy takes a definitive stance. No hedging, no "we believe," no "in our opinion." Clear conviction communicated authoritatively. | | Preeminent advisors LEAD. They tell clients what to do, how to do it, and why. Hedging signals uncertainty and erodes trust. |
+| 10 | [ ] **Long-Term Framing** -- The copy frames the relationship as ongoing, not one-time. References to future value, continued support, or long-term results. | | Preeminence is about lifetime relationships, not one-time transactions. The copy should signal "I'm here for the long haul." |
+| 11 | [ ] **Genuine Care Evident** -- A reader who showed this copy to a skeptical friend would hear "This person actually cares about helping you" not "They just want your money." | | The ultimate Preeminence test. If skeptics sense genuine care, the positioning is right. If they sense a sales pitch, it fails. |
+| 12 | [ ] **Client's Best Interest Demonstrable** -- You can point to at least 3 specific places where the copy prioritizes client benefit over seller profit. | | Preeminence is not a vague feeling -- it must be DEMONSTRABLE through specific copy choices that clearly favor the client. |
+
+### Preeminence Scoring
+
+| Score | Rating | Action |
+|-------|--------|--------|
+| 12/12 | PREEMINENT | Ship with confidence -- this embodies the philosophy |
+| 10-11 | STRONG | Address gaps, then ship |
+| 9 | PASSING | Fix the missing elements before delivery |
+| 7-8 | ADVISORY-ADJACENT | Significant rewrite needed -- the tone is off |
+| Below 7 | TRANSACTIONAL | Full rewrite required. Read abraham.md Preeminence section. |
+
+---
+
+## Section 2: 3 Ways Growth Calculator (Diagnostic)
+
+Before producing ANY copy or offer, calculate the current state and
+identify which multiplier is weakest. The weakest multiplier is where
+the highest leverage exists.
+
+### Step 2A: Current State Baseline
+
+| Metric | Current Value | Source of Data |
+|--------|---------------|----------------|
+| **C** (Number of active clients) | _________ | |
+| **V** (Average transaction value $) | _________ | |
+| **F** (Frequency per year) | _________ | |
+| **REVENUE** (C x V x F) | _________ | |
+| **Attrition rate** (% lost per year) | _________ | |
+| **Conversion rate** (prospect to buyer) | _________ | |
+| **Referral rate** (% of clients who refer) | _________ | |
+| **LTV** (Lifetime value per client) | _________ | |
+
+### Step 2B: Multiplier Health Diagnostic
+
+| Multiplier | Current Effort (%) | Current Spend ($) | Improvement Potential | Priority |
+|------------|--------------------|--------------------|----------------------|----------|
+| **Customers (C)** | ____% | $_____ | Low / Med / High | 1 / 2 / 3 |
+| **Transaction Value (V)** | ____% | $_____ | Low / Med / High | 1 / 2 / 3 |
+| **Frequency (F)** | ____% | $_____ | Low / Med / High | 1 / 2 / 3 |
+
+**Key Diagnostic Questions:**
+
+| # | Question | Answer | Implication |
+|---|----------|--------|-------------|
+| 1 | [ ] What % of budget goes to NEW customer acquisition? | ____% | If >60%, over-invested in C; under-invested in V and F |
+| 2 | [ ] Is there an upsell/cross-sell at point of purchase? | Y/N | If N, V multiplier is idle |
+| 3 | [ ] Is there a backend sequence (email, phone, retargeting)? | Y/N | If N, F multiplier is idle |
+| 4 | [ ] Is there a systematic referral program? | Y/N | If N, cheapest C growth channel is unused |
+| 5 | [ ] What is the gap between best and worst performing channel? | ____% | Gap = hidden V and F revenue |
+| 6 | [ ] Has pricing been tested in the last 6 months? | Y/N | If N, V may be significantly below maximum |
+| 7 | [ ] Are there dormant clients (no purchase 12+ months)? | Y/N, #_____ | If Y, reactivation = cheapest C growth |
+| 8 | [ ] Is there a continuity/subscription offer? | Y/N | If N, F is structurally limited |
+
+### Step 2C: Growth Scenario Modeling
+
+Fill in target improvements and calculate geometric impact:
+
+| Scenario | C Improvement | V Improvement | F Improvement | Combined Growth | New Revenue |
+|----------|---------------|---------------|---------------|-----------------|-------------|
+| Conservative | +10% | +10% | +10% | +33.1% | $_________ |
+| Moderate | +15% | +15% | +15% | +52.1% | $_________ |
+| Aggressive | +25% | +25% | +25% | +95.3% | $_________ |
+| Custom | +___% | +___% | +___% | = ______% | $_________ |
+
+**Formula:** Combined Growth = [(1 + C%) x (1 + V%) x (1 + F%)] - 1
+
+### Step 2D: Copy Impact Mapping
+
+For each piece of copy being produced, identify which multiplier(s) it serves:
+
+| Copy Element | Impacts C? | Impacts V? | Impacts F? | Primary Lever |
+|--------------|------------|------------|------------|---------------|
+| VSL/Sales Letter | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | |
+| Landing Page | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | |
+| Upsell Page | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | |
+| Email Sequence | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | |
+| Referral Copy | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | |
+| Retention Email | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | |
+| JV Endorsement Letter | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] | |
+
+- [ ] Every copy piece impacts at least 1 multiplier (if not, why does it exist?)
+- [ ] At least one piece impacts 2+ multipliers simultaneously
+- [ ] The WEAKEST multiplier has at least one dedicated copy piece
+
+---
+
+## Section 3: Risk Reversal Hierarchy Check (8-Point)
+
+Every offer MUST include risk reversal. Minimum: Level 2. Target: Level 3+.
+
+| # | Check | Pass? | Why It Matters |
+|---|-------|-------|----------------|
+| 1 | [ ] **Guarantee EXISTS** -- There is an explicit guarantee in the offer. Not implied. Not assumed. STATED. | | No guarantee = all risk on buyer = friction = lost sales. Abraham proved guarantees increase sales up to 300% with attrition rarely exceeding 2%. |
+| 2 | [ ] **Guarantee is NAMED** -- The guarantee has a proprietary name (e.g., "The Triple Protection Promise"), not generic "money-back guarantee." | | Named guarantees feel more substantial, are more memorable, and become a selling point in themselves. Generic guarantees are invisible. |
+| 3 | [ ] **Tied to SPECIFIC Outcome** -- The guarantee references a measurable result, not vague "satisfaction" (e.g., "if you don't see [X result] within [Y timeframe]"). | | Specific outcomes make the guarantee REAL. "Satisfaction guaranteed" is meaningless because satisfaction is undefined. |
+| 4 | [ ] **Has a TIMEFRAME** -- The guarantee specifies exact duration (30 days, 90 days, 1 year, lifetime). | | Open-ended guarantees create uncertainty. A specific timeframe creates a defined "try it" window that encourages action. |
+| 5 | [ ] **Placed NEAR CTA** -- The guarantee appears within 3 paragraphs of the call to action. Not buried earlier in the copy. | | Risk reversal reduces friction at the MOMENT OF DECISION. If it's too far from the CTA, the reader has already moved past the fear. |
+| 6 | [ ] **Restated 3+ Times** -- The guarantee is mentioned at least 3 times across the full copy (intro area, close area, P.S.). | | Repetition ensures no reader misses it. The guarantee is too important to mention once and hope they noticed. |
+| 7 | [ ] **Has REASON-WHY** -- The copy explains WHY you can offer such a strong guarantee. "I can offer this because..." | | An unexplained strong guarantee triggers suspicion ("what's the catch?"). A reason-why makes it believable and builds confidence. |
+| 8 | [ ] **Level 2+ Strength** -- The guarantee is at least Level 2 on Abraham's hierarchy (specific outcome guarantee, not generic money-back). | | Level 1 guarantees are table stakes -- invisible in the market. Level 2+ actually MOVES buyers. |
+
+### Risk Reversal Level Assessment
+
+| Level | Name | Current Guarantee? | Upgrade Path |
+|-------|------|--------------------|--------------|
+| [ ] 1 | Standard ("money back") | | Tie to specific outcome + add timeframe |
+| [ ] 2 | Specific (outcome + timeframe) | | Add "keep everything" + bonus |
+| [ ] 3 | Better-Than-Risk-Free (refund + keep + bonus) | | Add performance gate |
+| [ ] 4 | Performance-Based (pay on results) | | Add reversal of reversal |
+| [ ] 5 | Total Confidence (you pay THEM if it fails) | | Maximum level -- maintain |
+
+### Risk Reversal Scoring
+
+| Score | Rating | Action |
+|-------|--------|--------|
+| 8/8 at Level 3+ | ABRAHAM-GRADE | Ship -- this removes all buyer friction |
+| 7/8 at Level 2+ | STRONG | Fix the gap, then ship |
+| 6/8 at Level 2 | ADEQUATE | Address missing elements |
+| 5/8 or Level 1 | WEAK | Major revision -- risk is still on the buyer |
+| Below 5 | ABSENT | Build guarantee from scratch (see abraham.md Framework 3) |
+
+---
+
+## Section 4: Joint Venture Evaluation Criteria (10-Point)
+
+For any JV/endorsement/partnership copy. Minimum: 7/10 to proceed.
+
+| # | Check | Pass? | Why It Matters |
+|---|-------|-------|----------------|
+| 1 | [ ] **Host Identified** -- The specific host/partner is named. Their audience size, trust level, and relevance are documented. | | JVs without a specific host are theoretical. Abraham's method requires targeting SPECIFIC partners, not "finding affiliates." |
+| 2 | [ ] **Non-Competitive Verified** -- The host sells something complementary, not competitive. Their product is purchased BEFORE, DURING, or AFTER yours. | | Competitive JVs create conflict. Complementary JVs create synergy. The buyer sequence determines the ideal partner. |
+| 3 | [ ] **Endorsement Written in HOST's Voice** -- The endorsement copy sounds like the HOST talking, not the beneficiary. Uses their vocabulary, references their audience's context. | | The entire power of a JV is trust transfer. If the endorsement doesn't sound like the host, the trust doesn't transfer. |
+| 4 | [ ] **Exclusive Offer Created** -- There is something available ONLY through this host that isn't available anywhere else. | | Exclusivity gives the host a reason to promote and gives the audience a reason to act through this channel specifically. |
+| 5 | [ ] **Performance-Based Structure** -- The host pays nothing upfront. Compensation is tied to results (per order, per inquiry, per lifetime value). | | Zero-risk for the host = higher willingness to promote. Performance structures are Abraham's cardinal rule for JVs. |
+| 6 | [ ] **Authority Transfer Sequence Present** -- The copy follows: (1) Host establishes credibility, (2) Host introduces beneficiary, (3) Beneficiary makes offer. Never: beneficiary introduces themselves. | | The host's introduction IS the credibility. Skipping it means the beneficiary starts from zero trust, defeating the purpose of the JV. |
+| 7 | [ ] **Host-Specific Bonus Exists** -- At least one bonus is exclusive to this host's audience. It references the host's context or adds value specific to their community. | | Generic bonuses feel generic. Host-specific bonuses prove this is a curated recommendation, not a mass blast. |
+| 8 | [ ] **Referral Tracking Active** -- There is a mechanism to track which sales came from which host. Each host has a unique link, code, or identifier. | | Without tracking, you can't pay hosts accurately, can't evaluate JV performance, and can't optimize the best partnerships. |
+| 9 | [ ] **Host's Reputation Protected** -- The offer includes a strong guarantee that protects both the buyer AND the host's reputation. The host won't look bad if the product disappoints. | | A JV partner who gets complaints from their audience will never promote again. Protecting the host's reputation is protecting the relationship. |
+| 10 | [ ] **Reciprocal Value Offered** -- You've considered what you can offer the host BEYOND commission: audience access, product, consulting, co-marketing. | | The best JVs are multi-dimensional relationships, not one-way commission deals. Reciprocity deepens the partnership. |
+
+### JV Quality Scoring
+
+| Score | Rating | Action |
+|-------|--------|--------|
+| 9-10 | ABRAHAM-GRADE JV | Execute with confidence |
+| 7-8 | STRONG | Address gaps, then execute |
+| 5-6 | INCOMPLETE | Significant rework before approaching host |
+| Below 5 | NOT READY | Build JV structure from scratch (see abraham.md Framework 5) |
+
+---
+
+## Section 5: Optimization-Before-Acquisition Audit (10-Point)
+
+Before recommending or building ANY new acquisition channel.
+All 10 checks are BLOCKING -- acquisition spend is premature if any fail.
+
+| # | Check | Pass? | Why It Matters |
+|---|-------|-------|----------------|
+| 1 | [ ] **Attrition Rate Known** -- Customer churn/attrition rate is measured and documented. Not estimated. MEASURED. | | You cannot fix what you don't measure. Most businesses have no idea how many clients they lose per month. This number determines whether growth is real or illusory. |
+| 2 | [ ] **Attrition Reduction Attempted** -- At least one attrition reduction initiative has been tested (retention sequence, check-in call, loyalty program, win-back campaign). | | Reducing attrition 10% is equivalent to acquiring 10% more customers -- at a fraction of the cost. Always plug the leak before filling the bucket. |
+| 3 | [ ] **Conversion Rate Optimized** -- Current prospect-to-buyer conversion rate is known, and at least 2 split tests have been run to improve it. | | Doubling conversion rate doubles the value of ALL existing traffic. This is the highest-leverage optimization available. |
+| 4 | [ ] **Upsell/Cross-Sell Exists** -- There is at least one upsell or cross-sell offer at or near the point of purchase. | | Transaction value (V multiplier) is the easiest to increase. An upsell costs almost nothing to create and can increase average order value 15-40%. |
+| 5 | [ ] **Backend Sequence Active** -- Post-purchase follow-up exists: email sequence, phone call, retargeting, or subscription offer. | | Frequency (F multiplier) requires a backend. Without it, each customer relationship is a one-time event. The most profitable businesses have 5-12 backend touchpoints. |
+| 6 | [ ] **Referral System Active** -- There is a systematic (not passive) referral program that incentivizes and facilitates client referrals. | | Referral clients convert higher, spend more, and churn less than any other acquisition source. This is the cheapest customer acquisition channel. |
+| 7 | [ ] **Dormant List Assessed** -- Past clients who haven't purchased in 12+ months have been identified and a reactivation campaign has been considered or executed. | | Dormant clients are the most overlooked asset in business. They already know you, bought from you, and many will buy again with a simple reactivation offer. |
+| 8 | [ ] **Pricing Tested** -- Price point has been tested within the last 6 months (higher price point tested, not just lower). | | Most businesses are UNDERPRICED. A 10% price increase with no volume loss is a direct 10% V multiplier improvement. Never assume current price is optimal. |
+| 9 | [ ] **Performance Variation Analyzed** -- The gap between best and worst performing salespeople/channels/campaigns is known. | | Abraham's "performance variation quotient": if your best salesperson converts 3x your worst, raising the worst to average is massive hidden revenue. |
+| 10 | [ ] **LTV Calculated** -- Lifetime value per client is calculated, not estimated. Includes all backend revenue, referral value, and retention timeline. | | LTV determines what you can afford to spend on acquisition. Without knowing LTV, you cannot rationally allocate acquisition budget. |
+
+### Optimization Priority Matrix
+
+Based on checks that FAILED above, prioritize interventions:
+
+| Priority | Optimization | Multiplier Impacted | Est. Effort | Est. Impact |
+|----------|-------------|---------------------|-------------|-------------|
+| 1 (highest leverage) | _________________ | C / V / F | Low/Med/High | Low/Med/High |
+| 2 | _________________ | C / V / F | Low/Med/High | Low/Med/High |
+| 3 | _________________ | C / V / F | Low/Med/High | Low/Med/High |
+| 4 | _________________ | C / V / F | Low/Med/High | Low/Med/High |
+| 5 (lowest leverage) | _________________ | C / V / F | Low/Med/High | Low/Med/High |
+
+**Rule:** Complete top 3 optimizations BEFORE any new acquisition spend.
+If all 10 checks pass, acquisition spend is APPROVED.
+
+### Optimization Scoring
+
+| Score | Rating | Action |
+|-------|--------|--------|
+| 10/10 | FULLY OPTIMIZED | Acquisition channels approved |
+| 8-9 | NEARLY OPTIMIZED | Fix gaps, then consider acquisition |
+| 6-7 | PARTIALLY OPTIMIZED | Significant optimization needed first |
+| 4-5 | UNDER-OPTIMIZED | Major optimization required -- no new acquisition |
+| Below 4 | UNOPTIMIZED | Stop all acquisition spend. Optimize fundamentals. |
+
+---
+
+## Section 6: Power Parthenon Revenue Audit (8-Point)
+
+Assess business resilience through revenue diversification.
+Minimum: 5/8 for stable businesses. Below 5 = structural vulnerability.
+
+| # | Check | Pass? | Why It Matters |
+|---|-------|-------|----------------|
+| 1 | [ ] **Revenue Sources Counted** -- Total distinct revenue sources (pillars) documented. Minimum target: 4. Ideal: 7+. Current count: _____ | | The Parthenon stands on multiple pillars. A business on 1-2 pillars is a diving board -- one shock and it collapses. |
+| 2 | [ ] **No Single Pillar >40%** -- No single revenue source accounts for more than 40% of total revenue. Highest pillar: ____% | | Concentration risk. If your largest pillar is 70% of revenue and it falters, the business is in crisis. Diversification = resilience. |
+| 3 | [ ] **Backend/Continuity Pillar Exists** -- There is at least one recurring revenue source (subscription, membership, retainer, continuity program). | | Recurring revenue is the most valuable pillar. It creates predictable income, increases LTV, and raises business valuation multiples. |
+| 4 | [ ] **Alliance/JV Pillar Exists** -- At least one revenue source comes from partnerships, JVs, or endorsed relationships (not self-generated traffic). | | JV pillars cost zero to build and tap into established trust. They are the fastest pillar to add to any Parthenon. |
+| 5 | [ ] **Referral Pillar Exists** -- A systematic (not passive) referral system generates measurable revenue. | | The cheapest customer acquisition channel, producing pre-sold buyers. Not "word of mouth" but a SYSTEM. |
+| 6 | [ ] **Stress Test Passed** -- "If my largest revenue pillar disappeared overnight, would the business survive 90 days?" Answer is YES. | | If the answer is no, the business has a single point of failure. This is the most important Parthenon diagnostic question. |
+| 7 | [ ] **Pillar Growth Plan** -- There is a documented plan to add at least 1 new revenue pillar in the next 90 days. | | Parthenon building is ongoing. Even healthy businesses should be adding pillars. Stagnation in diversification = future vulnerability. |
+| 8 | [ ] **Pillars Are Complementary** -- Revenue sources serve different segments, channels, or needs. They don't cannibalize each other. | | 3 products sold through the same channel to the same customer = 1 pillar with 3 SKUs, not 3 pillars. True diversification requires different VALUE DELIVERY mechanisms. |
+
+### Parthenon Health Map
+
+| Pillar # | Description | Revenue % | Channel | Independent? |
+|----------|-------------|-----------|---------|--------------|
+| 1 | _______________ | ____% | _________ | Y / N |
+| 2 | _______________ | ____% | _________ | Y / N |
+| 3 | _______________ | ____% | _________ | Y / N |
+| 4 | _______________ | ____% | _________ | Y / N |
+| 5 | _______________ | ____% | _________ | Y / N |
+| 6 | _______________ | ____% | _________ | Y / N |
+| 7 | _______________ | ____% | _________ | Y / N |
+
+### Parthenon Scoring
+
+| Pillar Count | Revenue Concentration | Rating | Risk Level |
+|--------------|----------------------|--------|------------|
+| 7+ pillars, none >25% | PARTHENON | RESILIENT | LOW |
+| 4-6 pillars, none >40% | STRONG | STABLE | MODERATE |
+| 2-3 pillars, largest <60% | DEVELOPING | VULNERABLE | HIGH |
+| 1-2 pillars, largest >60% | DIVING BOARD | FRAGILE | CRITICAL |
+
+---
+
+## Section 7: USP Positioning Audit (6 Criteria)
+
+Every offer must have a USP that passes Abraham's quality test.
+Minimum average: 7/10 across all 6 criteria.
+
+| # | Criterion | Score (1-10) | Evidence/Notes |
+|---|-----------|--------------|----------------|
+| 1 | **Specificity** -- Does the USP name a SPECIFIC benefit, not a vague promise? "Lose 23 lbs in 87 days" not "lose weight fast." | /10 | |
+| 2 | **Uniqueness** -- Can ANY competitor in this market make the SAME claim truthfully? If yes, score 1. | /10 | |
+| 3 | **Desirability** -- Does the target audience actively WANT this specific thing? Validated by VOC? | /10 | |
+| 4 | **Believability** -- Is the claim supported by evidence, mechanism, or demonstration? Or does it require blind faith? | /10 | |
+| 5 | **Memorability** -- Can the USP be stated in ONE sentence and remembered after one reading? | /10 | |
+| 6 | **Integration** -- Is the USP woven into EVERY touchpoint (headline, body, CTA, email, ads) or just the tagline? | /10 | |
+
+**Average Score: ___/10**
+
+| Average | Rating | Action |
+|---------|--------|--------|
+| 8-10 | DISTINCTIVE | USP is a competitive advantage |
+| 7 | ADEQUATE | Strengthen weakest criterion |
+| 5-6 | GENERIC | Major revision -- risk of commoditization |
+| Below 5 | COMMODITY | No USP exists. Build from scratch. |
+
+### USP Integration Check
+
+| Touchpoint | USP Present? | Consistent? |
+|------------|-------------|-------------|
+| Headline/Hook | [ ] | [ ] |
+| Opening paragraphs | [ ] | [ ] |
+| Body copy | [ ] | [ ] |
+| CTA section | [ ] | [ ] |
+| Guarantee | [ ] | [ ] |
+| Email sequence | [ ] | [ ] |
+| Ad creative | [ ] | [ ] |
+| Social media | [ ] | [ ] |
+
+**Abraham's Rule:** "Whatever your USP stands for, you do at ALL TIMES."
+If the USP is not present at every touchpoint, it's a tagline, not a USP.
+
+---
+
+## Section 8: Sticking Point Diagnostic (9-Point)
+
+Identify which of Abraham's 9 sticking points applies to the current
+business/offer. Check ALL that apply, then prioritize.
+
+| # | Sticking Point | Applies? | Severity (1-10) | Abraham Framework to Apply |
+|---|----------------|----------|------------------|---------------------------|
+| 1 | [ ] Losing to competitors (no distinctive positioning) | | /10 | USP + Preeminence |
+| 2 | [ ] Low sales volume (not selling enough) | | /10 | 3 Multipliers + Optimization Sequence |
+| 3 | [ ] Erratic sales (unpredictable revenue) | | /10 | Systematic marketing + Backend + Parthenon |
+| 4 | [ ] Failing to strategize (reactive, not proactive) | | /10 | Strategic planning + Parthenon architecture |
+| 5 | [ ] High overhead/costs (burning cash) | | /10 | JV leverage + Performance-based structures |
+| 6 | [ ] Doing more of what doesn't work (insanity loop) | | /10 | Innovation + Split testing + New channels |
+| 7 | [ ] Commoditized (competing on price) | | /10 | Unique Mechanism + Preeminence + USP |
+| 8 | [ ] Mediocre marketing (outdated approaches) | | /10 | Modern techniques + JVs + Risk Reversal |
+| 9 | [ ] Doing everything yourself (no leverage) | | /10 | JV partnerships + Outsourcing + Licensing |
+
+**Primary Sticking Point:** #___ (highest severity)
+**Secondary Sticking Point:** #___ (second highest)
+**Prescribed Abraham Framework:** ___________________________
+
+---
+
+## Section 9: Overall Abraham Strategy Score
+
+Compile scores from all sections for a comprehensive evaluation.
+
+| Section | Score | Max | % | Pass? |
+|---------|-------|-----|---|-------|
+| 1. Preeminence Audit | /12 | 12 | % | 9+ = Pass |
+| 2. 3 Ways Calculator | Complete? | Y/N | -- | Y = Pass |
+| 3. Risk Reversal | /8 | 8 | % | 6+ = Pass |
+| 4. JV Evaluation | /10 | 10 | % | 7+ = Pass (if applicable) |
+| 5. Optimization Audit | /10 | 10 | % | 8+ = Pass |
+| 6. Parthenon Audit | /8 | 8 | % | 5+ = Pass |
+| 7. USP Audit | /10 avg | 10 | % | 7+ = Pass |
+| 8. Sticking Point ID | Complete? | Y/N | -- | Y = Pass |
+
+### Overall Rating
+
+| Sections Passing | Rating | Status |
+|-----------------|--------|--------|
+| 8/8 | ABRAHAM-GRADE | Ready for production and scaling |
+| 6-7 | STRONG | Address gaps in failing sections |
+| 4-5 | DEVELOPING | Significant strategic work needed |
+| 2-3 | EARLY STAGE | Foundational strategy must be built |
+| 0-1 | NOT STRATEGIC | Full strategic overhaul required |
+
+### Action Plan Template
+
+Based on failing sections, create a prioritized action plan:
+
+| Priority | Section Failed | Specific Gap | Action Required | Timeline | Owner |
+|----------|---------------|--------------|-----------------|----------|-------|
+| 1 | | | | | |
+| 2 | | | | | |
+| 3 | | | | | |
+| 4 | | | | | |
+| 5 | | | | | |
+
+---
+
+## Section 10: Referral System Evaluation (6-Point)
+
+Specific audit for referral mechanisms. Minimum: 4/6 for any offer with
+an active client base.
+
+| # | Check | Pass? | Why It Matters |
+|---|-------|-------|----------------|
+| 1 | [ ] **Referral Mechanism Exists** -- There is a defined process for generating referrals. Not "we hope clients refer" but a SYSTEM with steps. | | Passive referrals are accidental. Systematic referrals are predictable. Abraham documented 93 distinct systems -- even ONE is better than hope. |
+| 2 | [ ] **Timing is Right** -- Referral requests happen at the PEAK of satisfaction (right after results, right after positive experience), not at random times. | | Asking for referrals before delivering value is transactional. Asking at the peak of satisfaction is natural and produces 3-5x more referrals. |
+| 3 | [ ] **Script Provided** -- Clients are given exact language to use when referring. They don't have to figure out what to say. | | Most clients WANT to refer but don't know how. A script reduces friction to near zero. "Tell them: I tried X and Y happened." |
+| 4 | [ ] **Incentive Exists** -- There is a reward for the referrer (not just the referred). The referrer feels valued. | | Unrewarded behavior diminishes. Even a simple thank-you + bonus for top referrers sustains the system. |
+| 5 | [ ] **Referral-Specific Offer** -- There is an offer available ONLY to referred prospects (not the same offer available to cold traffic). | | Exclusivity rewards the referrer's effort and gives the referred prospect a reason to act through this channel specifically. |
+| 6 | [ ] **Tracking Active** -- Referral sources are tracked. You know WHICH clients refer, HOW MANY they refer, and the LIFETIME VALUE of referred clients. | | Without tracking, you cannot optimize. Top referrers should be identified and cultivated. Referral LTV should be compared to other acquisition channels. |
+
+### Referral System Level
+
+| Level | Description | Current? |
+|-------|-------------|----------|
+| [ ] 0 | No referral system (passive "word of mouth") | |
+| [ ] 1 | Informal asks ("Know anyone who needs this?") | |
+| [ ] 2 | Incentivized (reward for referrals) | |
+| [ ] 3 | Systematic (built into delivery experience) | |
+| [ ] 4 | Endorsed (host-beneficiary partnerships) | |
+| [ ] 5 | Structural (product inherently generates referrals) | |
+
+**Target: Level 3 minimum. Level 4-5 for maximum growth.**
+
+---
+
+## Quick Reference: Abraham Decision Matrix
+
+When facing ANY business/copy decision, run through this quick filter:
+
+| Question | If YES | If NO |
+|----------|--------|-------|
+| Does this serve the client's best interest? | Proceed | Reframe or abandon |
+| Which of the 3 multipliers does this impact? | Document which | If none, why are we doing it? |
+| Is there a risk reversal stronger than Level 1? | Good | Upgrade guarantee |
+| Have we optimized existing assets first? | Proceed to acquire | Optimize before spending |
+| Does this add a Parthenon pillar? | Excellent | Not required, but consider |
+| Would Abraham call this "Preeminent"? | Ship it | Rewrite with advisory positioning |
+| Is the USP clear, specific, and integrated? | Proceed | Clarify before production |
+| Can a competitor use this copy unchanged? | REWRITE | Proceed |
+
+---
+
+*Abraham Strategy Multiplier Checklist v1.0*
+*Companion to: ~/.claude/copy-squad/abraham.md (Voice DNA Profile)*
+*Sources: Strategy of Preeminence, Getting Everything You Can Out of All You've Got, The Sticking Point Solution, 93 Extraordinary Referral Systems, Power Parthenon Strategy, 502 Case Studies*