@lucapimenta/copy-chief-black 1.0.0

package/framework/copy-squad/checklists/cialdini-persuasion-principles.md

@@ -0,0 +1,401 @@
+# Cialdini 7 Principles of Persuasion -- Audit Checklist
+
+> **Expert:** Robert Cialdini
+> **Source:** Influence (1984), Pre-Suasion (2016) + Voice DNA Profile
+> **Use:** Complete audit for all 7 principles of persuasion plus Pre-Suasion. Run on EVERY piece of copy before shipping. Identifies missing principles, weak deployments, and ethical violations.
+> **Cross-ref:** `cialdini.md` Frameworks 1-10 for theory, research, and examples.
+
+---
+
+## Part 1: Reciprocity Audit
+
+### Checkpoints
+
+| # | Checkpoint | Question | Pass/Fail |
+|---|-----------|----------|-----------|
+| 1.1 | **Value Before Ask** | Does the copy give genuine value (insight, tool, revelation) BEFORE making any request? | [ ] |
+| 1.2 | **Unexpected Gift** | Is there at least one moment of UNEXPECTED value that goes beyond what the prospect expected? | [ ] |
+| 1.3 | **Personalization** | Is the value personalized to the prospect's specific situation ("for people like you who...") rather than generic? | [ ] |
+| 1.4 | **Multiple Gifts** | Are there at least 2-3 distinct value-giving moments throughout the copy (not all front-loaded)? | [ ] |
+| 1.5 | **Genuine Value** | Would the prospect find value in what was given even if they NEVER purchased? | [ ] |
+| 1.6 | **No Strings Visible** | Is the gift given WITHOUT visible expectation? (No "I'm giving you this so you should buy...") | [ ] |
+| 1.7 | **Bonus Stack** | Does the offer include bonuses that function as additional reciprocity triggers? | [ ] |
+| 1.8 | **Concession Present** | Is there a concession element? ("I considered charging X, but decided to offer it at Y because...") | [ ] |
+
+**Reciprocity Score: ___ / 8**
+
+| Score | Rating | Action |
+|-------|--------|--------|
+| 7-8 | STRONG | Reciprocity is well-deployed |
+| 5-6 | ADEQUATE | Add 1-2 unexpected value moments |
+| 3-4 | WEAK | Restructure opening to lead with value |
+| Below 3 | MISSING | Copy asks before giving. Restructure entirely. |
+
+---
+
+## Part 2: Commitment and Consistency Audit
+
+### Checkpoints
+
+| # | Checkpoint | Question | Pass/Fail |
+|---|-----------|----------|-----------|
+| 2.1 | **Opening Agreement** | Does the copy start with a statement or question the prospect naturally agrees with? | [ ] |
+| 2.2 | **Micro-Commitment Chain** | Are there at least 5 escalating micro-commitments before the purchase ask? | [ ] |
+| 2.3 | **Self-Identification** | Does the copy invite the prospect to IDENTIFY as someone specific? ("If you're the kind of person who...") | [ ] |
+| 2.4 | **Active Commitment** | Is there at least one moment requiring ACTIVE response? (quiz answer, click, scroll decision) | [ ] |
+| 2.5 | **Voluntary Feel** | Does every commitment feel VOLUNTARY? (No forced opt-ins, pre-checked boxes, manipulative UX) | [ ] |
+| 2.6 | **Belief Commitment** | Does the prospect agree with the MECHANISM before seeing the offer? (Belief precedes purchase) | [ ] |
+| 2.7 | **Consistency Bridge** | Is the purchase framed as the LOGICAL and CONSISTENT next step after all prior agreements? | [ ] |
+| 2.8 | **Post-Purchase Reinforcement** | Does post-purchase copy reinforce the decision? ("You made the right choice.") | [ ] |
+| 2.9 | **Progressive Escalation** | Do commitments ESCALATE gradually (mental nod -> click -> time -> email -> purchase)? | [ ] |
+
+**Commitment Score: ___ / 9**
+
+| Score | Rating | Action |
+|-------|--------|--------|
+| 8-9 | STRONG | Commitment chain is well-built |
+| 6-7 | ADEQUATE | Add 1-2 intermediate commitments |
+| 4-5 | WEAK | Map the full commitment ladder and fill gaps |
+| Below 4 | MISSING | No commitment chain exists. Build from scratch. |
+
+---
+
+## Part 3: Social Proof Audit
+
+### Checkpoints
+
+| # | Checkpoint | Question | Pass/Fail |
+|---|-----------|----------|-----------|
+| 3.1 | **Numerical Proof** | Are there specific, non-round numbers? ("12,847" not "thousands") | [ ] |
+| 3.2 | **Named Testimonials** | Are testimonials from NAMED individuals with specific details (age, city, profession)? | [ ] |
+| 3.3 | **Similarity Match** | Do testimonials/proof come from people SIMILAR to the target prospect? (Same demographics, same struggle) | [ ] |
+| 3.4 | **Expert Endorsement** | Is there at least one expert/institutional endorsement? | [ ] |
+| 3.5 | **Proof Stacking** | Are at least 3 DIFFERENT types of social proof used? (numbers, named, expert, media, real-time) | [ ] |
+| 3.6 | **Result Specificity** | Do testimonials include SPECIFIC results? ("Lost 23kg in 87 days" not "lost weight") | [ ] |
+| 3.7 | **Mechanism Proof** | Is there proof that the MECHANISM works (not just the product)? (Study, research, expert validation) | [ ] |
+| 3.8 | **Recency** | Is the social proof RECENT? (Dates, "this month," current year references) | [ ] |
+| 3.9 | **Context Match** | Is the social proof in the RIGHT context? (Proof for the claim it supports, not generic) | [ ] |
+| 3.10 | **Cascade Order** | Does proof escalate from broad (numbers) to specific (named story) to expert to real-time? | [ ] |
+
+**Social Proof Score: ___ / 10**
+
+| Score | Rating | Action |
+|-------|--------|--------|
+| 9-10 | STRONG | Social proof cascade is complete |
+| 7-8 | ADEQUATE | Add missing proof types from the stack |
+| 5-6 | WEAK | Major gaps. Add similarity-matched proof and specificity. |
+| Below 5 | CRITICAL | Insufficient social proof. Build the cascade from scratch. |
+
+---
+
+## Part 4: Authority Audit
+
+### Checkpoints
+
+| # | Checkpoint | Question | Pass/Fail |
+|---|-----------|----------|-----------|
+| 4.1 | **Credentials Visible** | Are the expert's credentials stated clearly and EARLY? (Title, institution, years of experience) | [ ] |
+| 4.2 | **Institutional Association** | Is the expert associated with a recognized institution? (University, hospital, publication) | [ ] |
+| 4.3 | **Demonstrated Knowledge** | Does the expert DEMONSTRATE knowledge through specific insights (not just claim expertise)? | [ ] |
+| 4.4 | **Credibility Paradox** | Is there at least one admission of limitation? ("This doesn't work for everyone..." or "12.7% saw no improvement...") | [ ] |
+| 4.5 | **Third-Party Validation** | Is the expert's authority validated by a THIRD PARTY? (Journal, media, peer, institution) | [ ] |
+| 4.6 | **Insider Knowledge** | Does the expert reveal something only a genuine insider would know? (Not generic information) | [ ] |
+| 4.7 | **Authority Consistency** | Is authority reinforced at multiple points? (Introduction, mechanism reveal, CTA) | [ ] |
+| 4.8 | **Genuine Credentials** | Are ALL claimed credentials VERIFIABLE and TRUE? (Fabricated authority = instant credibility collapse) | [ ] |
+
+**Authority Score: ___ / 8**
+
+| Score | Rating | Action |
+|-------|--------|--------|
+| 7-8 | STRONG | Authority is well-established |
+| 5-6 | ADEQUATE | Add demonstrated knowledge or third-party validation |
+| 3-4 | WEAK | Authority is claimed but not demonstrated. Add proof of expertise. |
+| Below 3 | MISSING | No credible authority present. Establish before proceeding. |
+
+---
+
+## Part 5: Liking Audit
+
+### Checkpoints
+
+| # | Checkpoint | Question | Pass/Fail |
+|---|-----------|----------|-----------|
+| 5.1 | **Similarity Signal** | Does the copy or expert demonstrate SIMILARITY to the prospect? (Shared background, shared struggle) | [ ] |
+| 5.2 | **Empathy Demonstration** | Is there genuine empathy for the prospect's situation? (Not just "I understand" but SPECIFIC understanding) | [ ] |
+| 5.3 | **Vulnerability** | Does the expert or narrator share a personal vulnerability or struggle? | [ ] |
+| 5.4 | **Cooperation Framing** | Is there a "we're in this together" or "us vs. them" framing? | [ ] |
+| 5.5 | **Conversational Tone** | Does the copy feel like a conversation with someone you LIKE, not a pitch from a stranger? | [ ] |
+| 5.6 | **Earned Compliments** | If compliments are present, are they EARNED and SPECIFIC? ("You've already shown courage by looking for answers" not "You're amazing!") | [ ] |
+| 5.7 | **Story Connection** | Is there a personal story that creates emotional connection with the reader? | [ ] |
+| 5.8 | **No Condescension** | Does the copy avoid talking DOWN to the prospect? (Respects their intelligence and past efforts) | [ ] |
+
+**Liking Score: ___ / 8**
+
+| Score | Rating | Action |
+|-------|--------|--------|
+| 7-8 | STRONG | Liking is well-established |
+| 5-6 | ADEQUATE | Add similarity signals or a vulnerability moment |
+| 3-4 | WEAK | Copy feels like a pitch, not a conversation. Add empathy and story. |
+| Below 3 | MISSING | No liking established. The prospect has no reason to listen. |
+
+---
+
+## Part 6: Scarcity Audit
+
+### Checkpoints
+
+| # | Checkpoint | Question | Pass/Fail |
+|---|-----------|----------|-----------|
+| 6.1 | **Real Limitation** | Is the scarcity GENUINE? (Real stock limits, real deadlines, real batch constraints) | [ ] |
+| 6.2 | **Explained Reason** | Is there a BELIEVABLE reason for the scarcity? ("Due to sourcing from..." or "This batch was limited to...") | [ ] |
+| 6.3 | **Specific Numbers** | Are scarcity numbers SPECIFIC? ("47 kits remaining" not "limited stock") | [ ] |
+| 6.4 | **Loss Framing** | Is scarcity framed as LOSS ("what you'll miss") rather than gain ("what you'll get")? | [ ] |
+| 6.5 | **Value First** | Has substantial VALUE been established BEFORE scarcity is introduced? (Scarcity amplifies zero = zero) | [ ] |
+| 6.6 | **Dual Scarcity** | Are BOTH quantity and time scarcity present? (Combined effect is stronger than either alone) | [ ] |
+| 6.7 | **Consequence of Missing** | Is the cost of MISSING the opportunity made concrete and visceral? | [ ] |
+| 6.8 | **No Fake Urgency** | Are countdown timers, "only X left" claims, and deadline statements ALL verifiable and real? | [ ] |
+| 6.9 | **Scarcity Timing** | Is scarcity introduced in the SECOND HALF of the copy? (After value, proof, and commitment) | [ ] |
+
+**Scarcity Score: ___ / 9**
+
+| Score | Rating | Action |
+|-------|--------|--------|
+| 8-9 | STRONG | Scarcity is genuine and well-calibrated |
+| 6-7 | ADEQUATE | Strengthen the reason or add loss framing |
+| 4-5 | WEAK | Scarcity feels artificial. Ground it in reality. |
+| Below 4 | CRITICAL | Either missing or fabricated. Fix before shipping. |
+
+---
+
+## Part 7: Unity Audit
+
+### Checkpoints
+
+| # | Checkpoint | Question | Pass/Fail |
+|---|-----------|----------|-----------|
+| 7.1 | **Tribal Identification** | Does the copy establish a shared IDENTITY between communicator and prospect? ("We" not "you and I") | [ ] |
+| 7.2 | **Shared Enemy** | Is there a common adversary that unites communicator and prospect? | [ ] |
+| 7.3 | **"We" Language** | Is "we/us/our" used consistently throughout (not just at the CTA)? | [ ] |
+| 7.4 | **Family Framing** | Is there at least one family-level framing? ("What I'd tell my own mother/brother/child...") | [ ] |
+| 7.5 | **Shared Experience** | Does the copy reference experiences the prospect and communicator BOTH had? | [ ] |
+| 7.6 | **Membership Invitation** | Is the purchase framed as JOINING a group rather than buying a product? | [ ] |
+| 7.7 | **Genuine Shared Ground** | Is the shared identity GENUINE? (Not appropriated or fabricated) | [ ] |
+| 7.8 | **Advice Not Opinion** | When seeking engagement, does the copy ask for "advice" or "help" rather than "opinion"? | [ ] |
+
+**Unity Score: ___ / 8**
+
+| Score | Rating | Action |
+|-------|--------|--------|
+| 7-8 | STRONG | Unity is deeply woven into the copy |
+| 5-6 | ADEQUATE | Add shared enemy or family framing |
+| 3-4 | WEAK | Copy feels like "seller to buyer" not "us together." Add tribal language. |
+| Below 3 | MISSING | No unity present. Establish shared identity in hook/problem section. |
+
+---
+
+## Part 8: Pre-Suasion Audit
+
+### Checkpoints
+
+| # | Checkpoint | Question | Pass/Fail |
+|---|-----------|----------|-----------|
+| 8.1 | **Pre-Suasive Opening** | Do the first 60 seconds prime the prospect for the message that follows? | [ ] |
+| 8.2 | **Self-Identification Question** | Is there a question that activates self-identification BEFORE the pitch? ("Are you someone who...?") | [ ] |
+| 8.3 | **Cost-of-Inaction Anchor** | Is the cost of NOT acting established BEFORE the price is revealed? | [ ] |
+| 8.4 | **Concept Priming** | Are concepts that support the core message activated BEFORE that message is delivered? | [ ] |
+| 8.5 | **Privileged Moment** | Is the actual offer/ask timed for a moment when the prospect is maximally receptive? | [ ] |
+| 8.6 | **Environmental Alignment** | Does the page/video design (colors, images, layout) support the message rather than contradict it? | [ ] |
+| 8.7 | **Attention Channeling** | Is attention directed to the ONE most important idea before distractions appear? | [ ] |
+
+**Pre-Suasion Score: ___ / 7**
+
+| Score | Rating | Action |
+|-------|--------|--------|
+| 6-7 | STRONG | Message lands on prepared mental soil |
+| 4-5 | ADEQUATE | Strengthen the opening prime |
+| 2-3 | WEAK | Opening does not prepare the prospect. Redesign first 60 seconds. |
+| Below 2 | MISSING | No pre-suasion present. The message fights against the context. |
+
+---
+
+## Part 9: Ethical Compliance Audit
+
+### Checkpoints
+
+| # | Checkpoint | Question | Pass/Fail |
+|---|-----------|----------|-----------|
+| 9.1 | **Mutual Benefit** | Would the prospect GENUINELY benefit from the action being promoted? | [ ] |
+| 9.2 | **6-Month Test** | Would the prospect THANK YOU for this influence 6 months from now? | [ ] |
+| 9.3 | **No Fabrication** | Is every piece of social proof, authority claim, and scarcity element REAL? | [ ] |
+| 9.4 | **Voluntary Compliance** | Could the prospect EASILY walk away at any point? (No dark patterns, no traps) | [ ] |
+| 9.5 | **Honest Limitations** | Are the product's limitations acknowledged somewhere? (Credibility paradox) | [ ] |
+| 9.6 | **No Exploitation** | Is the copy influencing toward a good decision or exploiting vulnerability? | [ ] |
+
+**Ethics Score: ___ / 6**
+
+| Score | Rating | Action |
+|-------|--------|--------|
+| 6 | CLEAN | Ethically sound influence |
+| 4-5 | REVIEW | Check flagged items for ethical alignment |
+| Below 4 | STOP | Ethical violations present. Do NOT ship until resolved. |
+
+---
+
+## Part 10: Scoring Matrix (Complete)
+
+### Individual Principle Scores
+
+| Principle | Max | Score | % |
+|-----------|-----|-------|---|
+| Reciprocity | 8 | ___ | ___% |
+| Commitment | 9 | ___ | ___% |
+| Social Proof | 10 | ___ | ___% |
+| Authority | 8 | ___ | ___% |
+| Liking | 8 | ___ | ___% |
+| Scarcity | 9 | ___ | ___% |
+| Unity | 8 | ___ | ___% |
+| Pre-Suasion | 7 | ___ | ___% |
+| Ethics | 6 | ___ | ___% |
+| **TOTAL** | **73** | **___** | **___%** |
+
+### Overall Rating
+
+| Total % | Rating | Action |
+|---------|--------|--------|
+| 90-100% | CIALDINI-GRADE | Ship with high confidence |
+| 80-89% | STRONG | Minor reinforcements in weak areas |
+| 70-79% | ADEQUATE | Strengthen 2-3 weakest principles before shipping |
+| 60-69% | WEAK | Major gaps. Address all principles below 60% |
+| Below 60% | REJECT | Insufficient influence architecture. Rebuild copy against all 7 principles. |
+
+### Minimum Requirements by Copy Type
+
+| Copy Type | Min Total % | Required Principles at 70%+ | Must-Have Principles |
+|-----------|-------------|---------------------------|---------------------|
+| **VSL** | 80% | 6 of 7 | Social Proof, Authority, Scarcity, Commitment |
+| **TSL/LP** | 75% | 5 of 7 | Social Proof, Authority, Reciprocity |
+| **Creative/Ad** | 65% | 3 of 7 | Curiosity-driver (any) + Social Proof + 1 more |
+| **Email Sequence** | 70% | 4 of 7 | Reciprocity, Consistency, Liking |
+| **CTA Block** | 80% | 5 of 7 | Scarcity, Social Proof, Commitment, Unity |
+| **Quiz Funnel** | 75% | 5 of 7 | Commitment, Social Proof, Curiosity |
+
+---
+
+## Part 11: Quick Reference -- Principles by Copy Section
+
+Use this table to quickly identify which principles to PRIORITIZE
+in each section of the copy. All principles can appear anywhere,
+but these are the PRIMARY principles per section.
+
+### VSL Section Map
+
+| Section | Primary Principles | Secondary | Min Active |
+|---------|-------------------|-----------|------------|
+| **Hook (0-60s)** | Unity, Pre-Suasion | Curiosity, Liking | 2-3 |
+| **Problem (1-5min)** | Liking, Unity, Commitment | Social Proof (peer) | 2-3 |
+| **Failed Solutions (5-7min)** | Authority, Social Proof | Commitment (agree they failed) | 2 |
+| **Mechanism (7-12min)** | Authority, Reciprocity | Social Proof (research) | 3 |
+| **Solution (12-15min)** | Authority, Social Proof | Consistency, Liking | 3 |
+| **Testimonials (15-17min)** | Social Proof, Liking | Unity, Authority | 3 |
+| **Offer (17-19min)** | Reciprocity, Scarcity | Social Proof, Commitment | 3-4 |
+| **Guarantee** | Authority, Reciprocity | Social Proof | 2 |
+| **CTA (19-20min)** | Scarcity, Commitment, Unity | Social Proof, Loss Frame | 4-5 |
+
+### TSL/Landing Page Section Map
+
+| Section | Primary Principles | Secondary | Min Active |
+|---------|-------------------|-----------|------------|
+| **Headline** | Pre-Suasion, Curiosity | Unity, Social Proof | 2 |
+| **Sub-headline** | Authority, Social Proof | Liking | 2 |
+| **Problem Block** | Liking, Unity | Commitment | 2-3 |
+| **Mechanism Block** | Authority, Reciprocity | Social Proof | 3 |
+| **Proof Block** | Social Proof (stacked) | Authority | 2-3 |
+| **Offer Block** | Reciprocity, Scarcity | Social Proof | 3 |
+| **CTA Button + Surrounding** | Scarcity, Commitment | Unity, Social Proof | 3-4 |
+| **FAQ** | Authority, Commitment | Social Proof | 2 |
+
+### Creative/Ad Section Map
+
+| Section | Primary Principles | Min Active |
+|---------|-------------------|------------|
+| **Hook (0-3s)** | Pre-Suasion + 1 of (Unity, Social Proof, Authority) | 2 |
+| **Body (3-15s)** | Reciprocity (value), Authority or Social Proof | 2 |
+| **CTA (last 5s)** | Scarcity, Commitment | 2 |
+
+### Email Sequence Map
+
+| Email # | Primary Principles | Purpose |
+|---------|-------------------|---------|
+| **Email 1 (Welcome)** | Reciprocity, Liking | Give value, build rapport |
+| **Email 2 (Story)** | Liking, Unity | Deepen connection through story |
+| **Email 3 (Mechanism)** | Authority, Reciprocity | Teach the mechanism (free insight) |
+| **Email 4 (Proof)** | Social Proof, Authority | Evidence cascade |
+| **Email 5 (Offer)** | Scarcity, Commitment, Reciprocity | Present offer with urgency |
+| **Email 6 (Close)** | Scarcity, Unity, Loss Frame | Final deadline + loss framing |
+
+---
+
+## Part 12: Principle Interaction Matrix
+
+Some principles AMPLIFY each other. Others can CONFLICT if deployed
+carelessly. Use this matrix to ensure principle combinations work
+together rather than against each other.
+
+### Amplifying Combinations (USE THESE)
+
+| Combination | Effect | Example |
+|-------------|--------|---------|
+| **Authority + Social Proof** | Expert validation + peer validation = maximum credibility | "Dr. X recommends it, and 12,847 people have used it" |
+| **Unity + Liking** | Shared identity + personal rapport = deep trust | "As someone who also suffered... we know what this is like" |
+| **Reciprocity + Commitment** | Gift creates obligation + first yes leads to more | Free value -> small action -> larger commitment |
+| **Scarcity + Social Proof** | Limited + popular = maximum desire | "Only 47 left -- 312 ordered yesterday" |
+| **Pre-Suasion + All Others** | Right mental state amplifies every principle | Prime before deploying any principle |
+| **Authority + Credibility Paradox** | Admitting weakness + expertise = deep trust | "It doesn't work for 12.7% of people -- here's why..." |
+
+### Conflicting Combinations (AVOID THESE)
+
+| Conflict | Problem | Fix |
+|----------|---------|-----|
+| **Scarcity + Abundance** | "Only 47 left!" + "Millions have tried it!" sends mixed signals | Choose one framing per section. Scarcity at CTA, abundance in proof. |
+| **Authority + Excessive Liking** | Too friendly undermines expertise | Calibrate: warm but professional, not buddy-buddy |
+| **Unity (exclusive) + Social Proof (mass)** | "For the elite few" + "Millions trust us" contradicts | Match unity framing to proof framing (exclusive + curated proof) |
+| **Multiple Scarcity Types** | Quantity + Time + Price + Bonus scarcity at once = overwhelm | Maximum 2 scarcity types per CTA |
+
+---
+
+## Part 13: Red Flags (Instant Fail)
+
+If ANY of these are present, the copy FAILS the audit regardless
+of total score.
+
+| # | Red Flag | Why | Fix |
+|---|----------|-----|-----|
+| 1 | Fake countdown timer (resets on refresh) | Permanent trust destruction | Use real deadline or remove |
+| 2 | Fabricated testimonials | If discovered, ALL credibility collapses | Replace with real testimonials, even imperfect |
+| 3 | False authority claims | Unverifiable credentials backfire | Use demonstrable expertise instead |
+| 4 | Scarcity before value | Urgency on nothing = pushy salesman | Establish value FIRST, then introduce scarcity |
+| 5 | Zero social proof | No evidence anyone else has benefited | Add at minimum numerical + 1 named testimonial |
+| 6 | Forced commitments | Pre-checked boxes, trapped UX | Make all commitments clearly voluntary |
+| 7 | No reciprocity (all ask, no give) | Prospect feels exploited, not served | Lead with genuine value before any ask |
+| 8 | Ethics score below 4 | Manipulation, not influence | Stop and fix ethical issues before ANY other work |
+
+---
+
+## Usage Notes
+
+- Run this COMPLETE audit on every VSL, TSL, landing page, and email sequence
+- Parts 1-8 (individual principles) are the DIAGNOSTIC -- they identify gaps
+- Part 9 (ethics) is the GATE -- it determines if the copy should ship at all
+- Part 10 (scoring) provides the DECISION -- ship, revise, or rebuild
+- Part 11 (quick reference) is the PLANNING tool -- use it BEFORE writing
+- Part 12 (interactions) prevents CONFLICTS between principles
+- Part 13 (red flags) provides INSTANT FAIL criteria
+- Cross-reference with `cialdini.md` for full theory, research, and frameworks
+- Cross-reference with `schwartz-awareness-levels.md` for awareness-matched deployment
+- Cross-reference with `anti-homogeneization.md` for Logo Test and specificity requirements
+
+---
+
+*Checklist v1.0 -- Robert Cialdini 7 Principles of Persuasion Audit*
+*Complete diagnostic: 7 principles + Pre-Suasion + ethics + scoring matrix + section mapping*
+*Source: Influence (1984), Pre-Suasion (2016) + cialdini.md Voice DNA Profile*

package/framework/copy-squad/checklists/collier-entry-diagnostic.md

@@ -0,0 +1,185 @@
+# Collier Entry Diagnostic Checklist
+
+> **Expert:** Robert Collier
+> **Source:** The Robert Collier Letter Book, Voice DNA Profile (collier.md)
+> **Use:** Diagnose reader entry point, construct empathy bridge, audit desire channeling, validate specificity, and structure letters. Run BEFORE writing any lead, opening, or empathy bridge section. Minimum: 35/50 checks passed for delivery.
+
+---
+
+## Category 1: Reader Entry Diagnostic (The Conversation)
+
+Before writing a SINGLE word, you must identify the conversation already
+happening in the reader's mind. These 5 questions are NON-NEGOTIABLE.
+Answer all 5 with specific, documented answers before opening your writing tool.
+
+| # | Check | How to Complete |
+|---|-------|-----------------|
+| 1 | [ ] **Current Worry Identified** -- You can state in one sentence what the reader is worried about RIGHT NOW (not in general, but at this moment in their life). Written in THEIR words, not yours. | Pull from VOC. Not "they worry about health" but "they're worried the ringing means they're going deaf." The answer must be specific enough that only THIS audience would say it. |
+| 2 | [ ] **2 AM Conversation Documented** -- You can describe the conversation the reader has with themselves at 2 AM -- the unspoken fear, the shameful desire, the truth they avoid in daylight. | This is the DEEP conversation. Not the polite version. "What if this never stops?" "What if she leaves?" "What if I fail AGAIN?" Pull from VOC comments with high emotional intensity (4-5). |
+| 3 | [ ] **Exact Vocabulary Captured** -- You have 10+ specific phrases the reader uses to describe their problem, pulled directly from VOC research. Not paraphrased. EXACT quotes. | Forum posts, comments, reviews, social media. "This goddamn ringing" not "auditory discomfort." "Nothing works" not "ineffective treatments." The words must be THEIRS. |
+| 4 | [ ] **Failed Solutions Listed** -- You can list at least 3 specific things the reader has already tried and failed with, in the order they typically try them. | This maps the reader's journey BEFORE your copy. "First they try ignoring it. Then they see an ENT. Then they try white noise apps. Then hearing aids. Then they Google 'tinnitus cure' at 3 AM." |
+| 5 | [ ] **Emotional Temperature Measured** -- You can name the reader's DOMINANT emotion right now AND its intensity level (1-5 on the emotional escalation scale). | Not just "frustrated" but "frustrated at Level 3 (consequence-level): they've been dealing with this for months/years and believe it may never end." The temperature determines your opening's tone. |
+
+**GATE:** If any of these 5 checks fail, STOP. Do not write. Return to VOC research.
+
+---
+
+## Category 2: Empathy Bridge Construction Guide (4 Steps)
+
+The Empathy Bridge moves the reader from "you understand me" to "you can help me."
+Use this fill-in template to construct each step before integrating into copy.
+
+| # | Check | Template |
+|---|-------|----------|
+| 6 | [ ] **Step 1: MIRROR Written** -- You have written 2-4 sentences that describe the reader's current reality so precisely they think you have been watching them. Uses THEIR words. Present tense. Specific scenarios. | *"You've been to [number] doctors. Maybe [number+1]. Each one [specific action they take]. And each time, you [specific feeling]. Because the [problem] is REAL -- it's there RIGHT NOW -- and [what the doctors say] doesn't [what they wish it would do]."* |
+| 7 | [ ] **Step 2: VALIDATE Written** -- You have written 1-3 sentences that explicitly confirm the reader's feelings are justified. Contains "not your fault" or equivalent. Does NOT contradict their beliefs. | *"You're not [negative self-judgment they fear]. And you're not wrong for feeling [their dominant emotion]. The [emotion] you feel -- that sense that [specific frustration] -- is completely justified."* |
+| 8 | [ ] **Step 3: REDIRECT Written** -- You have written 1-2 sentences that introduce the NEW information (the MUP) without mentioning the product. Feels like a revelation, not a pitch. | *"But here's what [authority figures] never told you -- because most of them don't know it yet: the problem was never [what they think it is]."* |
+| 9 | [ ] **Step 4: BRIDGE Written** -- You have written 1-2 sentences connecting the redirect to the solution. Feels inevitable, not commercial. | *"And once you understand what's ACTUALLY [causing/blocking/creating] the [problem] -- and it's something [surprising detail] -- the path to [desired outcome] becomes [adjective: simple/clear/obvious]."* |
+| 10 | [ ] **40% Rule Verified** -- Steps 1-2 (Mirror + Validate) comprise at least 40% of the total opening word count. Measured, not estimated. | Count the words. Steps 1-2 = X words. Total opening = Y words. X/Y must be >= 0.40. If not, expand Mirror and Validate sections. |
+| 11 | [ ] **No Product Mention in Bridge** -- The product name, product type, and solution category do NOT appear anywhere in Steps 1-3. Only Step 4 begins to hint at a path forward. | Search your bridge text for the product name and any synonym. If found in Steps 1-3, remove it. The bridge is about the READER'S world, not your product. |
+| 12 | [ ] **VOC Language Used** -- At least 3 phrases in the bridge are pulled directly from VOC research (exact quotes or very close paraphrases). | Underline the VOC phrases in your bridge. If fewer than 3, replace your language with theirs. |
+| 13 | [ ] **Specific Failed Attempts Referenced** -- The Mirror step mentions at least 2 specific things the reader has tried and failed with. | Not "you've tried everything" (vague). "You've tried [specific thing 1] and [specific thing 2]" (specific). |
+
+---
+
+## Category 3: Six Prime Motivators Audit
+
+Every piece of copy must tap at least one of Collier's 6 Prime Motivators.
+The strongest copy taps 2-3. Audit your copy against all six.
+
+| # | Check | Diagnostic Question |
+|---|-------|-------------------|
+| 14 | [ ] **Primary Motivator Identified** -- You can name the ONE dominant motivator your copy taps. It is the motivator with the HIGHEST intensity for this specific audience. | Which of the 6 does this audience feel MOST intensely? (1) Love/belonging, (2) Gain/greed, (3) Duty/obligation, (4) Pride/recognition, (5) Self-indulgence/pleasure, (6) Self-preservation/fear. The answer must come from VOC, not assumption. |
+| 15 | [ ] **Secondary Motivator Activated** -- Your copy taps at least ONE additional motivator beyond the primary. The secondary motivator reinforces the primary, not competes with it. | Does a second motivator appear in your copy? Example: Primary = Self-preservation (fear of deafness), Secondary = Love (not being present for family conversations). Both pull in the SAME direction. |
+| 16 | [ ] **Motivator Is SPECIFIC** -- The motivator is expressed through specific, concrete scenarios -- not abstract concepts. | "Self-preservation" is abstract. "Terrified that the ringing means your brain is deteriorating" is specific. "Love" is abstract. "Wanting your husband to look at you the way he did on your wedding night" is specific. |
+| 17 | [ ] **Motivator Appears in Opening** -- The primary motivator is activated within the first 20% of the copy. It does not wait for the middle or end. | Check: where does the motivator first appear? If it is buried in the second half, restructure. The reader's desire must be BURNING from the beginning. |
+| 18 | [ ] **No Motivator Conflict** -- The motivators activated in your copy do not pull in opposite directions. (Example conflict: "relax and enjoy" vs "work harder than ever.") | List your motivators. Do they align? Can the reader pursue both simultaneously? If not, choose one and remove the other. |
+| 19 | [ ] **Motivator Matches VOC** -- The motivator(s) you chose are confirmed by VOC research. You have quotes from real people expressing this specific desire. | Find 3+ VOC quotes that express the motivator you're tapping. If you cannot find them, the motivator may be YOUR assumption, not the reader's reality. |
+
+---
+
+## Category 4: Desire Channeling Worksheet
+
+Desire is channeled, not created. Use this worksheet to map the desire
+landscape before writing.
+
+| # | Check | How to Complete |
+|---|-------|-----------------|
+| 20 | [ ] **Desire Stack Created** -- You have a ranked list of every desire the product fulfills, ordered from strongest to weakest intensity. Minimum 5 desires listed. | List every outcome the reader wants. Rank by emotional intensity (not importance to YOU). The #1 desire is what leads your copy. #2-3 reinforce. #4+ deepen the vision section. |
+| 21 | [ ] **Primary Desire Is Pre-Existing** -- The #1 desire on your stack existed in the reader BEFORE your copy. It is something they already want, not something your copy convinced them to want. | Test: Would the reader nod "yes" if asked "Do you want [this]?" before reading your copy? If they need YOUR copy to create the desire, it is not pre-existing. Find one that is. |
+| 22 | [ ] **Connection Made Clear** -- Your copy explicitly shows how the product is the SHORTEST, SAFEST, MOST CERTAIN path from where the reader is to the fulfillment of their #1 desire. | The reader must see: "THIS product = THAT desire fulfilled." Not vaguely. CLEARLY. With specifics about how the product delivers the desired outcome. |
+| 23 | [ ] **Alternatives Feel Inferior** -- After reading your copy, the reader would feel that other solutions (competitors, DIY, doing nothing) are clearly worse paths to the same desire. | Not by attacking competitors. By making YOUR path so vivid and certain that alternatives fade by comparison. "Why would I try THAT when THIS is available?" |
+| 24 | [ ] **Desire Language Used** -- The desire is expressed in the reader's language, not yours. "Sleeping through the night" not "improved sleep quality." "Making my wife smile again" not "enhanced relationship outcomes." | Check every desire statement in your copy. Is it in THEIR voice or YOUR voice? Replace your voice with theirs everywhere. |
+| 25 | [ ] **Desire Reinforced 3+ Times** -- The primary desire appears at least 3 times throughout the copy -- in the opening, in the middle, and near the close. Each appearance uses different words but the same underlying desire. | Mark every instance where the primary desire is referenced. If fewer than 3, add reinforcement points. The reader should feel the desire BUILDING, not fading. |
+
+---
+
+## Category 5: Specificity Audit (10 Checkpoints)
+
+Every major claim in your copy must pass this specificity audit. Vague claims
+create suspicion. Specific claims create belief.
+
+| # | Check | Standard |
+|---|-------|----------|
+| 26 | [ ] **Named Person Present** -- At least one specific person is named in the copy (not "a doctor" but "Dr. Klaus Richter" or "Maria, 47, from Goiania"). | Every story, testimonial, or case reference must have a NAME. Anonymous claims have zero credibility. |
+| 27 | [ ] **Non-Round Numbers Used** -- Every number in the copy is non-round (87%, not 90%. $347, not $350. 23 days, not 3 weeks. 2,847 people, not "thousands"). | Search for round numbers: 10, 20, 50, 100, 500, 1000. Replace each with a measured, non-round equivalent. Round = invented. Non-round = measured. |
+| 28 | [ ] **Geographic Anchor Present** -- At least one specific location is named (city, institution, country, region). | "Researchers in Germany" is moderate. "Researchers at the University of Heidelberg" is strong. "Dr. Richter's lab on the third floor of the Heidelberg audiology center" is vivid. |
+| 29 | [ ] **Temporal Anchor Present** -- At least one specific time reference appears (date, time of day, day of week, month, year). | "Recently" is banned. "In March 2024" is moderate. "At 3:17 AM on a Tuesday in March" is strong. Time anchors signal lived experience. |
+| 30 | [ ] **Sensory Detail Included** -- At least one detail engages a sense beyond sight/sound (touch, smell, taste, temperature, texture, physical sensation). | "She felt better" is abstract. "The pressure behind her eyes released, like a fist unclenching" is sensory. Sensory details bypass skepticism. |
+| 31 | [ ] **Irrelevant Vivid Detail Present** -- At least one detail is included that is technically unnecessary but makes the scene feel REAL (what someone was wearing, what they were drinking, what was on TV). | "She was pouring her second cup of coffee -- the instant kind, because her husband refuses to buy a real machine -- when she realized the silence." The irrelevant detail PROVES it happened. |
+| 32 | [ ] **Result Specificity Verified** -- Every result claim is specific and measurable, not vague and qualitative. | "Improved" is banned. "Blood pressure dropped from 180/120 to 124/81 in 14 days" is specific. "Felt better" is banned. "Slept 7 hours straight for the first time in 3 years" is specific. |
+| 33 | [ ] **Data + Narrative Specificity Present** -- The copy contains BOTH data specificity (numbers, stats, measurements) AND narrative specificity (vivid scenes, sensory details, human moments). | Both faces required. Data alone = clinical. Narrative alone = anecdotal. Together = unshakable belief. Check that both types appear. |
+| 34 | [ ] **3-of-5 Rule Met on Major Claims** -- Every major claim has at least 3 of the 5 specificity anchors: Name, Number, Time, Place, Vivid Detail. | List your 3 biggest claims. For each, count how many anchors are present. If any claim has fewer than 3, add specifics until it passes. |
+| 35 | [ ] **Zero Vague Quantifiers** -- No instances of: "many people," "thousands," "a lot of," "most," "some," "several," "various," "numerous," "countless." Each replaced with a specific number or named example. | Search for every vague quantifier. Replace each one. "Many people" becomes "2,847 people across 14 countries." "Most doctors" becomes "Dr. Richter and his team of 7 audiologists." |
+
+---
+
+## Category 6: Letter Structure Template
+
+Use this to verify the structure of your letter follows Collier's 8-section
+architecture with appropriate word count allocation.
+
+| # | Check | Structural Verification |
+|---|-------|----------------------|
+| 36 | [ ] **Hook Present (5-8%)** -- The opening enters the reader's existing conversation. Does NOT mention the product. Makes the reader think "this is about ME." | Target: 50-100 words. If the hook mentions your product, credentials, or company, rewrite. The hook belongs to the READER. |
+| 37 | [ ] **Bridge Present (15-20%)** -- The Empathy Bridge follows the 4-step architecture: Mirror, Validate, Redirect, Connect. 40% rule satisfied. | Target: 150-250 words. Verify the 4 steps are present in order. Verify Steps 1-2 are >= 40% of total opening. |
+| 38 | [ ] **Story Present (15-20%)** -- A transformation narrative carries the selling message. The reader sees themselves in the story. Contains specific details (names, places, numbers). | Target: 150-250 words. The story must feature someone the reader IDENTIFIES with -- not a celebrity, not the company founder, but someone like THEM. |
+| 39 | [ ] **Evidence Present (10-15%)** -- Proof section with specifics: numbers, names, results, mechanism explanation. Answers "does it REALLY work?" | Target: 100-175 words. Check for named people, measured results, institutional references, mechanism clarity. |
+| 40 | [ ] **Vision Present (10-15%)** -- Future-pacing section painting life AFTER the purchase. Specific and sensory, not abstract. | Target: 100-175 words. The reader must FEEL the future. "Imagine waking up and... silence. Just silence." Not "your life will improve." |
+| 41 | [ ] **Offer Present (10-12%)** -- Clear statement of what they get and what it costs. Components listed individually. Value exceeds price perception. | Target: 100-150 words. Every component named. Perceived value >> price. |
+| 42 | [ ] **Push Present (8-10%)** -- Specific, logical reasons why delay costs the reader something real. Not generic urgency. | Target: 75-125 words. "Act now" is banned. Specific consequences of waiting are required. |
+| 43 | [ ] **Close Present (5-8%)** -- Explicit, step-by-step instructions on what to do next. Zero ambiguity. | Target: 50-100 words. Not "click here." But "Click the green button below. On the next page, select your package. Enter your details. Your [product] ships within 24 hours." |
+| 44 | [ ] **Sections in Order** -- The 8 sections appear in sequence: Hook > Bridge > Story > Evidence > Vision > Offer > Push > Close. No section is skipped or reordered. | Review the full copy structure. Mark where each section begins and ends. If any section is missing or out of order, restructure. |
+
+---
+
+## Category 7: "Enter the Conversation" Opening Formulas (8 Types)
+
+Verify which opening formula was used and whether it was executed correctly.
+
+| # | Check | Formula Verification |
+|---|-------|---------------------|
+| 45 | [ ] **Opening Type Selected** -- You consciously chose one of the 8 entry types BEFORE writing, based on the reader's current state (not randomly). | The 8 types: (1) Failed Solutions, (2) Current Suffering, (3) Secret Fear, (4) Recurring Moment, (5) Wrong Belief, (6) Tribal Selection, (7) Overheard Truth, (8) Time-Stamped Pain. Which did you choose? WHY? |
+| 46 | [ ] **Opening Matches Reader State** -- The chosen formula matches the reader's documented emotional state and awareness level. | Failed Solutions works for Solution Aware readers. Secret Fear works for Problem Aware. Wrong Belief works for Unaware/Problem Aware. Verify alignment with awareness level. |
+| 47 | [ ] **Opening Is Market-Specific** -- The opening could NOT be used in a different market without significant rewriting. It contains details specific to THIS audience and THIS problem. | Test: swap the opening into a competitor's copy. Does it still work? If yes, it is not specific enough. Add details that make it IMPOSSIBLE to transplant. |
+| 48 | [ ] **First Sentence Under 15 Words** -- The very first sentence is short, punchy, and impossible to skip. | Count the words. If more than 15, split or cut. The first sentence is a HOOK, not a paragraph. |
+| 49 | [ ] **Micro-Commitment Created** -- The opening creates an internal "yes" from the reader within the first 2-3 sentences. The reader nods, agrees, or recognizes themselves. | Read the opening as the reader. Do you nod? Do you think "yes, that's me"? If the reaction is neutral, the opening is not entering their conversation. |
+| 50 | [ ] **"I" Does Not Appear First** -- The first word of the copy is NOT "I." The opening focuses on the reader ("You," "Your," or a description of their world), not the writer. | Check the first word. If "I," rewrite. The opening belongs to the reader. You enter THEIR world; you do not invite them into yours. |
+
+---
+
+## Scoring
+
+| Checks Passed | Rating | Action |
+|---------------|--------|--------|
+| 45-50 | COLLIER-GRADE | Ship with confidence. The reader's conversation has been entered. |
+| 35-44 | STRONG | Address remaining gaps, particularly in Categories 1-2, then ship. |
+| 25-34 | ADEQUATE | Significant rewrite needed. Likely failing on empathy bridge or specificity. |
+| 15-24 | WEAK | Major structural issues. Return to VOC research and rebuild from diagnostic. |
+| Below 15 | REJECT | Start over. Read collier.md F1-F6 before attempting again. |
+
+---
+
+## Quick Reference: The 8 Opening Formulas
+
+| # | Type | Formula | Best For |
+|---|------|---------|----------|
+| 1 | **Failed Solutions** | "If you've tried [X, Y, Z] and nothing worked..." | Solution Aware (frustrated) |
+| 2 | **Current Suffering** | "Right now, at this moment, you're dealing with..." | Problem Aware (in pain) |
+| 3 | **Secret Fear** | "There's something you haven't told anyone..." | Problem Aware (afraid) |
+| 4 | **Recurring Moment** | "Every [time], the same thing happens..." | Problem Aware (pattern recognition) |
+| 5 | **Wrong Belief** | "You've been told [common belief]. That's not true." | Unaware / Problem Aware (paradigm shift) |
+| 6 | **Tribal Selection** | "If you're the kind of person who [trait]..." | Most Aware (identity-based) |
+| 7 | **Overheard Truth** | "The other day, someone said something that stopped me..." | Problem Aware (curiosity) |
+| 8 | **Time-Stamped Pain** | "Last night at [time], you probably..." | Problem Aware (vivid pain) |
+
+---
+
+## Quick Reference: The 6 Prime Motivators
+
+| # | Motivator | Core Question | Copy Application |
+|---|-----------|---------------|-----------------|
+| 1 | **Love** | "Will this help me connect with / be loved by [person]?" | Show restored or deepened relationships |
+| 2 | **Gain** | "Will this give me more money / status / advantage?" | Show specific material improvements |
+| 3 | **Duty** | "Is this something I SHOULD do for [family/self/others]?" | Make inaction feel irresponsible |
+| 4 | **Pride** | "Will others admire / recognize / respect me for this?" | Show how others will see them differently |
+| 5 | **Self-Indulgence** | "Will this make my life easier / more pleasurable?" | Paint a picture of effortless results |
+| 6 | **Self-Preservation** | "Will this protect me from [threat/loss/deterioration]?" | Show what they LOSE by not acting |
+
+---
+
+## Usage Notes
+
+- Run Category 1 (Reader Entry Diagnostic) BEFORE writing. It is a prerequisite, not a post-check.
+- Run Category 2 (Empathy Bridge) DURING construction of the bridge section.
+- Run Categories 3-5 AFTER completing the first draft.
+- Run Category 6 (Letter Structure) to verify overall architecture.
+- Run Category 7 AFTER selecting and writing your opening formula.
+- Cross-reference with `collier.md` for full framework detail and examples.
+- Cross-reference with VOC research files for exact reader language.
+- This checklist is REQUIRED for all sections assigned to Collier: lead, reader_entry, empathy_bridge, letter_opening.
+
+---
+
+*Checklist v1.0 -- Based on Robert Collier's Entry Diagnostic and Empathy Bridge Methodology*
+*50 checks across 7 categories: Entry Diagnostic, Bridge Construction, Prime Motivators, Desire Channeling, Specificity, Letter Structure, Opening Formulas*