@lucapimenta/copy-chief-black 1.0.0

package/framework/copy-squad/checklists/marcondes-primary.md

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+# Leonardo Marcondes Madureira - Primary Checklist
+
+> **Expert:** marcondes
+> **Use for:** marketing_juridico, authority_building, ia_content, launch_funnel, social_selling, case_presentation
+> **Cross-ref:** `~/.claude/copy-squad/marcondes.md`
+
+---
+
+## Checklist (20 items)
+
+### Autoridade e Prova Social (4 checks)
+- [ ] Pelo menos 3 cases com números específicos (nome, área, resultado, tempo)
+- [ ] Métricas do expert citadas: "3.000+ clientes", "R$10M", "500+ alunos"
+- [ ] Credenciais verificáveis mencionadas (escritório próprio, 280K seguidores)
+- [ ] Inclui pelo menos 1 case de fracasso para transparência
+
+### Voz e Tom (4 checks)
+- [ ] Tom de mentor pragmático, não guru motivacional
+- [ ] Frases curtas, parágrafos de 1-3 linhas máximo
+- [ ] Zero linguagem de coach: "mentalidade", "desbloqueie", "potencial"
+- [ ] Zero linguagem jurídica formal na copy: "destarte", "ad argumentandum"
+
+### Reframes e Dissolução de Objeções (4 checks)
+- [ ] Reframe "marketing ≠ ser vendedor" presente quando relevante
+- [ ] Medo da OAB endereçado com Provimento 205/2021
+- [ ] Crença "não tenho tempo" contornada com IA + templates
+- [ ] Objeção financeira resolvida com esteira escalonada ou garantia
+
+### Método e Estrutura (4 checks)
+- [ ] Método AIMJ nomeado e seus 4 módulos claros (IA, Posicionamento, Captação, Autoridade)
+- [ ] IA posicionada como alavanca, nunca substituto
+- [ ] Esteira de preços lógica (R$67 → R$97 → R$997 → R$7K)
+- [ ] Garantia de risco reverso explícita e simples
+
+### Urgência e Hooks (4 checks)
+- [ ] Urgência competitiva real: "1,3M advogados" ou "concorrente que aparece primeiro"
+- [ ] Hook no padrão "confrontação + reframe" (ex: "Não precisa de seguidores. Precisa de sistema.")
+- [ ] Pattern "de X para Y em Z tempo" usado em headline ou subhead
+- [ ] CTA claro com linguagem simples: "Sem contrato. Sem enrolação."
+
+---
+
+## Scoring
+
+| Range | Grade |
+|-------|-------|
+| 18-20 | Expert-Grade — voz Marcondes autêntica |
+| 14-17 | Strong — ajustes menores de tom |
+| 10-13 | Needs Work — faltam cases ou tom está genérico |
+| <10 | Rewrite — parece copy genérica de marketing digital |

package/framework/copy-squad/checklists/ogilvy-brand-response.md

@@ -0,0 +1,438 @@
+# Ogilvy Brand Response Checklist - T0_DIAGNOSIS
+
+> **Expert:** David Ogilvy
+> **Tier:** T0_DIAGNOSIS
+> **Threshold:** 85/100 to PASS
+> **Use:** Pre-flight audit for any copy that must build brand while selling.
+> Applies to: headlines, VSLs, landing pages, print ads, criativos, email sequences.
+
+---
+
+## How to Use This Checklist
+
+1. Complete each section honestly, scoring each criterion
+2. Sum category scores
+3. Check total against decision matrix
+4. If REVISE or REWRITE, address specific failing categories first
+5. Re-audit after revisions (never skip re-audit)
+
+---
+
+## Scoring Matrix
+
+### 1. Research Foundation (15 points)
+
+> "I am helpless without research material."
+> Copy written without research is guessing. Expensive guessing.
+
+| Criterion | 0 pts | 5 pts | 8 pts | 15 pts |
+|-----------|-------|-------|-------|--------|
+| Research depth | No research done | Brief product review | Product + competitor study | Full immersion (product, competitors, consumers, 20yr ad history) |
+
+**Checklist items:**
+
+- [ ] Product studied in depth (specs, process, ingredients, mechanism)
+- [ ] Competitor advertising reviewed (at minimum past 5 years)
+- [ ] Consumer research consumed (VOC, reviews, forums, complaints)
+- [ ] Product used or experienced personally (when possible)
+- [ ] At least ONE specific fact from research appears in headline
+- [ ] Body copy contains facts discoverable only through research
+- [ ] No claim in the copy lacks a factual basis from research
+
+**Red flags (automatic 0):**
+- Copy written from brief alone without additional research
+- All facts could be found on the product's own marketing page
+- No consumer language present (only marketer language)
+
+**Score: ___/15**
+
+---
+
+### 2. Headline Quality (20 points)
+
+> "When you have written your headline, you have spent eighty cents out of your dollar."
+> Five times as many people read the headline as read the body copy.
+
+| Criterion | 0 pts | 5 pts | 10 pts |
+|-----------|-------|-------|--------|
+| Benefit present? | No clear benefit | Implied benefit | Explicit, specific benefit |
+| Specificity? | Generic/vague | Some detail | Specific fact, number, or detail |
+
+**Checklist items:**
+
+- [ ] Headline contains a clear BENEFIT or NEWS element
+- [ ] Headline is 10+ words (long headlines sell more)
+- [ ] Brand or product name appears in the headline
+- [ ] Headline selects the right reader (wrong readers self-exclude)
+- [ ] At least 5 alternative headlines were written before selection
+- [ ] Headline contains a SPECIFIC detail (number, name, process)
+- [ ] Headline could NOT be used by a competitor without modification
+- [ ] Headline does not use puns, double meanings, or wordplay
+- [ ] Headline is not "blind" (could be about anything)
+- [ ] Headline promises something the body copy delivers
+
+**Headline type classification (mark one):**
+
+| Type | Present? | Effectiveness Rank |
+|------|----------|--------------------|
+| Promise of benefit | [ ] | 1 (highest) |
+| News announcement | [ ] | 2 |
+| Curiosity with substance | [ ] | 3 |
+| How-to | [ ] | 4 |
+| Question that implies benefit | [ ] | 5 |
+| Testimonial headline | [ ] | 6 |
+| Command headline | [ ] | 7 |
+
+**Instant-fail triggers:**
+- Pun or wordplay in headline
+- No benefit AND no news AND no curiosity
+- Headline works equally well for competitor product
+- Headline shorter than 5 words with no justification
+
+**Score: ___/20**
+
+---
+
+### 3. Big Idea Test (15 points)
+
+> "It takes a big idea to attract attention. Unless your advertising
+> contains a big idea, it will pass like a ship in the night."
+> Fewer than 1 in 100 campaigns contain a big idea.
+
+| Question | YES (3 pts) | NO (0 pts) |
+|----------|-------------|------------|
+| Did it make me gasp? | [ ] | [ ] |
+| Do I wish I had thought of it? | [ ] | [ ] |
+| Is it unique? | [ ] | [ ] |
+| Does it fit the strategy perfectly? | [ ] | [ ] |
+| Could it run for 30 years? | [ ] | [ ] |
+
+**Evaluation notes:**
+
+- [ ] The central idea can be stated in ONE sentence
+- [ ] The idea is inseparable from the product (cannot be borrowed)
+- [ ] The idea surprises AND makes logical sense simultaneously
+- [ ] The idea is simple enough to explain to someone in 10 seconds
+- [ ] The idea creates jealousy in competitors (not just admiration)
+
+**Scoring guide:**
+- 5/5 YES = 15 points (Big Idea confirmed)
+- 4/5 YES = 12 points (Strong idea, refine the weak dimension)
+- 3/5 YES = 9 points (Concept, not yet a big idea)
+- 2/5 YES = 5 points (Needs fundamental rethinking)
+- 1/5 or 0/5 = 0 points (Discard and start fresh)
+
+**Score: ___/15**
+
+---
+
+### 4. Specificity Audit (15 points)
+
+> "Specific facts persuade. Adjectives puff."
+> The Rolls-Royce Method: replace every adjective with a fact.
+
+| Criterion | 0 pts | 5 pts | 8 pts | 15 pts |
+|-----------|-------|-------|-------|--------|
+| Fact density | Mostly adjectives | Mixed | Facts dominate | Zero adjectives without accompanying facts |
+
+**Adjective audit (count each):**
+
+| Category | Count |
+|----------|-------|
+| Adjectives WITHOUT facts | ___ (target: 0) |
+| Adjectives WITH supporting facts | ___ |
+| Specific numbers (non-round) | ___ (target: 3+) |
+| Named sources/references | ___ (target: 2+) |
+| Process descriptions | ___ (target: 2+) |
+| Verifiable details | ___ (target: 5+) |
+
+**Checklist items:**
+
+- [ ] No unsupported adjective survives (each one paired with a fact)
+- [ ] At least 3 specific, non-round numbers in the copy
+- [ ] At least 2 named sources (person, institution, publication)
+- [ ] At least 2 process descriptions (how something is made/done)
+- [ ] Claims are stated as FACTS, not as opinions
+- [ ] Engineer's language present (not just marketer's language)
+- [ ] Reader could verify claims independently if she wanted to
+
+**The Adjective Replacement Test:**
+Pick the 3 strongest adjectives in the copy. For each:
+1. Can it be replaced by a specific number? [ ]
+2. Can it be replaced by a process description? [ ]
+3. Can it be replaced by a named reference? [ ]
+If YES to any, replace it. If NO to all three, the adjective may stay.
+
+**Instant-fail triggers:**
+- Body copy has more adjectives than facts
+- Zero specific numbers in entire piece
+- "Best," "finest," "revolutionary" used without evidence
+- Claims that rely on the reader trusting your word alone
+
+**Score: ___/15**
+
+---
+
+### 5. Brand Image Consistency (10 points)
+
+> "Every advertisement is part of the long-term investment in the
+> personality of the brand."
+
+| Criterion | 0 pts | 3 pts | 5 pts | 10 pts |
+|-----------|-------|-------|-------|--------|
+| Brand consistency | No defined personality | Some consistency | Mostly consistent | Perfect alignment with brand personality |
+
+**Checklist items:**
+
+- [ ] Brand personality is DEFINED before evaluation (documented)
+- [ ] Tone matches established brand personality exactly
+- [ ] Visual style (if applicable) is consistent with brand assets
+- [ ] This piece could be recognized as this brand with logo removed
+- [ ] No element contradicts the established brand personality
+- [ ] Copy adds to the brand equity (does not merely spend it)
+- [ ] Language register is consistent with brand character
+
+**Brand Personality Sharpness Test:**
+
+| Question | Answer |
+|----------|--------|
+| If this brand were a person, who would they be? | ___ |
+| What is the ONE adjective that defines it? | ___ |
+| What would this brand NEVER do? | ___ |
+| Does this copy do anything the brand would never do? | YES/NO |
+
+**Scoring guide:**
+- Brand undefined = maximum 5 points (define brand first)
+- Brand defined + copy consistent = 8-10 points
+- Brand defined + copy inconsistent = 0-3 points
+
+**Score: ___/10**
+
+---
+
+### 6. Long Copy Structure (10 points)
+
+> "The more you tell, the more you sell."
+> Long copy outsells short copy when the reader is interested.
+
+| Criterion | 0 pts | 3 pts | 5 pts | 10 pts |
+|-----------|-------|-------|-------|--------|
+| Copy sufficiency | Too short for subject | Adequate | Thorough | Every relevant fact included, zero filler |
+
+**Checklist items:**
+
+- [ ] Copy length is appropriate to the product/price (higher price = longer copy)
+- [ ] No relevant fact was omitted for brevity
+- [ ] Every paragraph advances the sale (no filler paragraphs)
+- [ ] Copy follows editorial style (not advertising style)
+- [ ] Paragraphs are 3-4 sentences maximum
+- [ ] First paragraph hooks the reader into the second
+- [ ] Subheadings tell the story even if body copy is skipped
+- [ ] Copy reads like journalism, not like advertising
+
+**Long Copy Justification Test:**
+- What is the product price? ___
+- What is the reader's awareness level? ___
+- What is the commitment level required? ___
+
+| Price/Commitment | Minimum Copy Length |
+|------------------|-------------------|
+| Low-ticket (<$50) | 300-500 words |
+| Mid-ticket ($50-500) | 500-2000 words |
+| High-ticket ($500+) | 2000-5000+ words |
+| Subscription/SaaS | 1000-3000 words |
+
+**Score: ___/10**
+
+---
+
+### 7. Direct Response Discipline (10 points)
+
+> "Direct response was my first love. Later it became my secret weapon."
+> Every advertisement should be measurable.
+
+| Criterion | 0 pts | 3 pts | 5 pts | 10 pts |
+|-----------|-------|-------|-------|--------|
+| Response mechanics | No CTA or measurement | Basic CTA | CTA + tracking | Full DR discipline (CTA, tracking, offer, measurement) |
+
+**Checklist items:**
+
+- [ ] Clear, specific call to action present
+- [ ] Offer is defined (what the reader gets for responding)
+- [ ] Response is trackable and measurable
+- [ ] Captions used under all images (miniature ads)
+- [ ] Every CTA is linked to a specific benefit or consequence
+- [ ] Risk reversal present (guarantee, trial, money-back)
+- [ ] Urgency or reason-to-act-now present (with reason WHY)
+
+**Direct Response Accountability Test:**
+
+| Element | Present? | Measurable? |
+|---------|----------|-------------|
+| Headline effectiveness | [ ] | [ ] |
+| Body copy engagement | [ ] | [ ] |
+| CTA click-through | [ ] | [ ] |
+| Conversion | [ ] | [ ] |
+| Revenue attribution | [ ] | [ ] |
+
+**Score: ___/10**
+
+---
+
+### 8. Reader Respect (5 points)
+
+> "The consumer is not a moron. She is your wife."
+
+| Criterion | 0 pts | 2 pts | 5 pts |
+|-----------|-------|-------|-------|
+| Respect level | Condescending or hyped | Mostly respectful | Treats reader as intelligent equal |
+
+**Checklist items:**
+
+- [ ] No ALL CAPS in body copy
+- [ ] No excessive exclamation marks (maximum 1-2 in entire piece)
+- [ ] No condescending language ("It's so easy even you can...")
+- [ ] No jargon without explanation
+- [ ] No hype words: "revolutionary", "incredible", "unbelievable"
+- [ ] Reader is addressed as an intelligent adult making a decision
+- [ ] Copy informs rather than pressures
+- [ ] If it reads like advertising, it has been rewritten as information
+
+**The Wife Test:**
+Would you feel comfortable showing this copy to your spouse,
+explaining that this is how you talk to customers?
+- YES = Pass
+- NO = Rewrite until YES
+
+**Score: ___/5**
+
+---
+
+## Total Score
+
+| Category | Score | Max | Weight |
+|----------|-------|-----|--------|
+| Research Foundation | ___ | 15 | Core |
+| Headline Quality | ___ | 20 | Critical |
+| Big Idea Test | ___ | 15 | Strategic |
+| Specificity Audit | ___ | 15 | Core |
+| Brand Image Consistency | ___ | 10 | Brand |
+| Long Copy Structure | ___ | 10 | Tactical |
+| Direct Response Discipline | ___ | 10 | Response |
+| Reader Respect | ___ | 5 | Tone |
+| **TOTAL** | **___** | **100** | |
+
+---
+
+## Decision Matrix
+
+| Score | Decision | Action |
+|-------|----------|--------|
+| **85-100** | PASS | Ready for production. Brand + response aligned. |
+| **70-84** | REVISE | Address failing categories. Re-audit required. |
+| **55-69** | MAJOR REVISE | Multiple structural issues. Return to research phase. |
+| **Below 55** | REWRITE | Fundamental problems. Start from research immersion. |
+
+---
+
+## Category-Specific Remediation
+
+If a specific category fails, use these targeted remediation steps:
+
+### Research Foundation < 10/15
+1. Stop writing. Return to research phase.
+2. Read competitor advertisements from past 5+ years.
+3. Consume consumer research (VOC, reviews, forums).
+4. Use or experience the product personally.
+5. Only resume writing when you can cite 10+ specific facts from research.
+
+### Headline < 13/20
+1. Write 20 additional headlines (not variations -- new approaches).
+2. For each, verify: benefit present? Brand name? Specific detail?
+3. Apply the Logo Test: can competitor use this headline? If yes, discard.
+4. Get opinions from 3+ people outside the project.
+5. Consider split-run testing for top 3 candidates.
+
+### Big Idea < 9/15
+1. Revisit research for the overlooked fact that "catches fire."
+2. Apply the Gasp Test honestly: did you gasp? If not, keep looking.
+3. Take a break. Load the unconscious. Return fresh.
+4. Consider: is this a tactic or a true idea? Tactics cannot run 30 years.
+5. The idea must be inseparable from the product.
+
+### Specificity < 10/15
+1. List every adjective in the copy.
+2. For each adjective, find a FACT to replace or support it.
+3. Add at least 3 non-round numbers from research.
+4. Add at least 2 named sources or references.
+5. Add at least 2 process descriptions (how something is made/done).
+6. Re-read: does it sound like an engineer talking, or a marketer?
+
+### Brand Image < 6/10
+1. Document brand personality if not defined (STOP until this is done).
+2. Compare this copy's tone against last 5 brand communications.
+3. Remove any element that contradicts established personality.
+4. Apply the Logo Removal Test: recognizable without the logo?
+5. Ensure tone consistency down to word choice and sentence rhythm.
+
+### Long Copy < 6/10
+1. List all relevant product facts not yet in the copy.
+2. Remove filler paragraphs (add fact paragraphs instead).
+3. Verify each paragraph advances the sale.
+4. Restructure as editorial (not advertising) layout.
+5. Add subheadings that tell the story independently.
+
+### Direct Response < 6/10
+1. Define the specific offer (what the reader gets for responding).
+2. Add a clear, specific CTA (not "Learn More" -- what happens next?).
+3. Add tracking to every CTA.
+4. Add captions under all images.
+5. Add risk reversal (guarantee, trial).
+6. Add reason-to-act-now with honest justification.
+
+### Reader Respect < 3/5
+1. Remove all ALL CAPS from body copy.
+2. Reduce exclamation marks to maximum 2 in entire piece.
+3. Remove jargon or add immediate plain-language explanations.
+4. Read aloud: does it sound like explaining to an intelligent friend?
+5. Apply The Wife Test.
+
+---
+
+## Quick Pre-Flight (5-Minute Version)
+
+For rapid checks when full audit is not practical:
+
+| # | Question | YES/NO |
+|---|----------|--------|
+| 1 | Was research completed before writing? | |
+| 2 | Does the headline contain a benefit AND a specific detail? | |
+| 3 | Could this headline be used by a competitor? | |
+| 4 | Does the Big Idea make you gasp? | |
+| 5 | Are there more facts than adjectives in the body? | |
+| 6 | Is the brand personality consistent with previous communications? | |
+| 7 | Is the copy long enough for the product/price? | |
+| 8 | Is there a clear, specific call to action? | |
+| 9 | Does it read like editorial, not advertising? | |
+| 10 | Would you show this to your spouse? | |
+
+**Scoring:** 9-10 YES = likely PASS. 7-8 YES = needs attention. Below 7 = full audit required.
+
+---
+
+## Integration with Other Checklists
+
+| After Ogilvy Audit... | Run This Next | Purpose |
+|----------------------|---------------|---------|
+| If headline scored <13 | Schwartz Awareness Calibration | Verify headline matches awareness level |
+| If specificity scored <10 | Hopkins Scientific Checklist | Apply scientific testing to facts |
+| If brand image scored <6 | Collier Entry Diagnostic | Verify entering prospect's conversation |
+| If DR discipline scored <6 | Kennedy No-BS Checklist | Apply direct response rigor |
+| If copy structure weak | Bencivenga Persuasion Audit | Verify emotional persuasion architecture |
+| If mechanism naming weak | Brown Mechanism Audit | Validate mechanism construction |
+
+---
+
+*Checklist v1.0 -- David Ogilvy Brand Response Audit*
+*Threshold: 85/100 to PASS*
+*Categories: Research, Headline, Big Idea, Specificity, Brand Image, Long Copy, Direct Response, Reader Respect*