@lucapimenta/copy-chief-black 1.0.0

package/framework/copy-squad/checklists/reeves-usp-audit.md

@@ -0,0 +1,498 @@
+# Reeves USP Audit Checklist
+
+> **Expert:** Rosser Reeves
+> **Source:** Reality in Advertising (1961), Ted Bates Copy Laboratory, Voice DNA Profile
+> **Use:** MANDATORY audit for every headline, USP statement, MUP/MUS proposition, criativo, and VSL hook before production.
+> **Ecosystem Alignment:** MUP/MUS system (mecanismo-unico.md), Logo Test (anti-homogeneization.md), Schwartz Awareness Calibration
+> **Threshold:** Score >= 80/100 to PASS. Any section scored 0 = automatic FAIL regardless of total.
+> **Rule:** No proposition goes to production until this checklist is completed and documented.
+
+---
+
+## PART 1: USP Validation (3-Requirement Test)
+
+The USP is not a slogan. It is not a tagline. It is a three-part structural
+test. If any part fails, you do not have a USP -- you have a commodity.
+
+### Requirement 1: PROPOSITION (Does it make a specific promise?)
+
+- [ ] **Q1: Does the copy state ONE concrete benefit?**
+  - YES = The reader knows exactly what they GET by buying
+  - NO = The copy describes features, mood, or brand without a benefit promise
+
+- [ ] **Q2: Can the proposition be stated in under 15 words?**
+  - Write the proposition here: `___`
+  - Word count: ___
+  - Under 15? [ ] YES / [ ] NO
+
+- [ ] **Q3: Can a non-expert repeat the proposition to a friend in one sentence?**
+  - Test: Read the proposition to someone. Can they restate it? [ ] YES / [ ] NO
+  - If NO: The proposition is too complex or too vague
+
+- [ ] **Q4: Does the proposition address a CONCRETE result, not an abstraction?**
+  - PASS: "Dissolves otolith crystals in 21 days" (concrete, measurable)
+  - FAIL: "Improves your hearing health" (abstract, unmeasurable)
+  - FAIL: "Revolutionary approach to tinnitus" (buzzword, no result stated)
+
+- [ ] **Q5: Is the proposition in the headline AND reinforced in body + CTA?**
+  - Headline states USP: [ ] YES / [ ] NO
+  - Body reinforces USP: [ ] YES / [ ] NO
+  - CTA connects to USP: [ ] YES / [ ] NO
+
+**Requirement 1 Score: ___/5 items passed**
+
+### Requirement 2: UNIQUE (Can no competitor make the same claim?)
+
+- [ ] **Q6: The Competitor-Name Swap Test**
+  Take the proposition. Replace your product name with the TOP 3 competitors.
+
+  | Competitor | Claim still works? | Verdict |
+  |-----------|-------------------|---------|
+  | [Name 1] | [ ] YES / [ ] NO | |
+  | [Name 2] | [ ] YES / [ ] NO | |
+  | [Name 3] | [ ] YES / [ ] NO | |
+
+  - If ANY competitor passes: **FAIL.** The proposition is not unique. Rewrite.
+  - If ALL competitors fail: **PASS.** The proposition is unique.
+
+- [ ] **Q7: Is the uniqueness based on a STRUCTURAL difference, not just wording?**
+  - PASS: The product has a feature, ingredient, process, or mechanism competitors lack
+  - FAIL: The product has the same features but uses different words to describe them
+
+- [ ] **Q8: Does the uniqueness derive from a genuinely superior product?**
+  - [ ] The product ACTUALLY delivers what the USP promises
+  - [ ] The superiority is verifiable, not just claimed
+  - If NO to either: Reeves would refuse the account. Fix the product first.
+
+- [ ] **Q9: Is the claim one that competitors do NOT make (even if they could)?**
+  - Some USPs are "preemptive claims" -- true for all products but stated by none
+  - If claimed preemptively AND no competitor has said it: PASS (with caveat)
+  - If competitor already makes this claim: FAIL regardless
+
+- [ ] **Q10: Logo Test (Anti-Homogeneization alignment)**
+  - Strip all brand identifiers from the copy
+  - Could this be ANY competitor's ad?
+  - [ ] YES = **FAIL.** Logo Test failed.
+  - [ ] NO = **PASS.** The copy is identifiably yours.
+
+**Requirement 2 Score: ___/5 items passed**
+
+### Requirement 3: SELLS (Does it move the mass millions?)
+
+- [ ] **Q11: Does the benefit address a UNIVERSAL desire or pain?**
+  - Not niche, not esoteric, not internal-team priorities
+  - The desire must be shared by MILLIONS in the target market
+  - VOC evidence that this desire exists at scale: [ ] Available / [ ] Missing
+
+- [ ] **Q12: Does the prospect ALREADY want what the USP promises?**
+  - Reeves does not create desire. He channels existing desire.
+  - Is this desire documented in VOC data? [ ] YES / [ ] NO
+  - Schwartz principle: existing mass desire, channeled through USP
+
+- [ ] **Q13: Would the prospect ACT on this proposition alone?**
+  - If the prospect read ONLY the headline (USP), would they want to know more?
+  - [ ] YES = Strong enough to move
+  - [ ] NO = Too weak, too vague, or too incremental
+
+- [ ] **Q14: Is the benefit TANGIBLE and self-evident?**
+  - Tangible: The prospect can picture the result
+  - Self-evident: No explanation needed to understand why this matters
+  - PASS: "No more chocolate on your fingers" (everyone gets it)
+  - FAIL: "Optimized cellular mitochondrial function" (needs translation)
+
+- [ ] **Q15: Emotional resonance at Escalada Level 3+?**
+  - The USP must hit at Consequence, Relational, or Identity level
+  - If the USP only touches Physical Immediate or Social levels, it is too shallow
+  - Escalada Level of USP: ___
+
+**Requirement 3 Score: ___/5 items passed**
+
+### USP Validation Summary
+
+| Requirement | Score | Pass? |
+|------------|-------|-------|
+| 1. Proposition (specific promise) | ___/5 | >= 4 |
+| 2. Unique (competitor-proof) | ___/5 | = 5 (ALL must pass) |
+| 3. Sells (mass appeal) | ___/5 | >= 4 |
+| **TOTAL** | **___/15** | **>= 13** |
+
+**If Requirement 2 has ANY item failed: STOP. Fix uniqueness before proceeding.**
+
+---
+
+## PART 2: Single Proposition Audit
+
+### Proposition Count Test
+
+Read the entire piece of copy. Count every DISTINCT proposition (benefit/claim).
+
+- [ ] **Q16: How many distinct propositions are present?**
+
+  | Count | Verdict | Action |
+  |-------|---------|--------|
+  | 1 | PASS | Proceed |
+  | 2 | FAIL | Remove the weaker one |
+  | 3+ | CRITICAL FAIL | Start over with one proposition |
+
+- [ ] **Q17: List every proposition found:**
+
+  ```
+  Primary:    ___
+  Secondary:  ___ (should not exist)
+  Tertiary:   ___ (should not exist)
+  ```
+
+  If more than one exists, identify which ONE is strongest and eliminate others.
+
+### Proposition Consistency Test
+
+- [ ] **Q18: Is the SAME proposition in the headline?**
+  - Headline proposition: `___`
+  - Does it match the core USP? [ ] YES / [ ] NO
+
+- [ ] **Q19: Is the SAME proposition in the body copy?**
+  - Count how many times the core proposition appears or is reinforced: ___
+  - Is it present in every major section? [ ] YES / [ ] NO
+
+- [ ] **Q20: Is the SAME proposition in the CTA?**
+  - CTA proposition: `___`
+  - Does it connect directly to the USP? [ ] YES / [ ] NO
+
+- [ ] **Q21: Does any supporting point COMPETE with the main proposition?**
+  - Supporting points should PROVE the USP, not introduce new benefits
+  - Any competing claims detected: [ ] YES (FAIL) / [ ] NO (PASS)
+  - If YES, list them: `___`
+
+- [ ] **Q22: Cross-channel consistency (if multiple pieces exist):**
+
+  | Channel | Proposition Stated | Matches Core USP? |
+  |---------|-------------------|-------------------|
+  | VSL Hook | ___ | [ ] YES / [ ] NO |
+  | LP Hero | ___ | [ ] YES / [ ] NO |
+  | Criativo | ___ | [ ] YES / [ ] NO |
+  | Email Subject | ___ | [ ] YES / [ ] NO |
+
+  - Any mismatch = proposition fragmentation. Fix before launch.
+
+**Single Proposition Score: ___/7 (items 16-22)**
+
+---
+
+## PART 3: Vampire Creativity Detector
+
+### Entertainment vs. Selling Test
+
+For each creative element in the copy/ad, evaluate whether it SERVES
+or COMPETES WITH the USP.
+
+- [ ] **Q23: Element-by-element vampire scan:**
+
+  | Element | Serves USP? | Competes with USP? | Verdict |
+  |---------|------------|-------------------|---------|
+  | Headline | [ ] | [ ] | |
+  | Visual/Image | [ ] | [ ] | |
+  | Story/Narrative | [ ] | [ ] | |
+  | Humor (if any) | [ ] | [ ] | |
+  | Celebrity/Expert (if any) | [ ] | [ ] | |
+  | Music/Sound (if video) | [ ] | [ ] | |
+  | Animation/Effects | [ ] | [ ] | |
+
+  Any element marked "Competes with USP" = potential vampire. Remove or redesign.
+
+### Recall Prediction Test
+
+- [ ] **Q24: After consuming this ad, what will the audience remember FIRST?**
+  - [ ] The product and its benefit = PASS
+  - [ ] The joke/story/celebrity = VAMPIRE DETECTED
+  - [ ] Nothing specific = No penetration. Simplify.
+
+- [ ] **Q25: The "What Was That Ad For?" Test**
+  Imagine describing this ad to a friend. Would you describe:
+  - [ ] The PRODUCT and what it does = PASS
+  - [ ] The CREATIVE execution (funny moment, cool visual) = VAMPIRE
+  - [ ] The CONCEPT but not the product = VAMPIRE
+
+- [ ] **Q26: Is the product named within the first 5 seconds (video) or first line (text)?**
+  - [ ] YES = Product-as-hero maintained
+  - [ ] NO = Product buried. Vampire risk high.
+
+- [ ] **Q27: Does the creative execution make the USP MORE memorable?**
+  - Not "equally memorable." MORE memorable.
+  - [ ] YES = The entertainment is a vehicle for the proposition
+  - [ ] NO = The entertainment is independent. Remove or restructure.
+
+- [ ] **Q28: Award Test**
+  Would this creative win an award for cleverness?
+  - [ ] YES but the USP is crystal clear = PASS (rare and excellent)
+  - [ ] YES and the USP is secondary = VAMPIRE (common and dangerous)
+  - [ ] NO = Not necessarily bad. Ugly ads that sell outperform beautiful ads that don't.
+
+**Vampire Creativity Score: ___/6 (items 23-28)**
+
+---
+
+## PART 4: Penetration Measurement Checklist
+
+### Pre-Launch Measurement Setup
+
+- [ ] **Q29: Penetration target defined?**
+  - Target: ___% recall within ___ weeks
+  - If no target is set, you cannot evaluate success
+
+- [ ] **Q30: Usage Pull target defined?**
+  - Target: ___% differential between recallers and non-recallers
+  - If no target is set, you are guessing
+
+- [ ] **Q31: Tracking infrastructure ready?**
+  - [ ] UTM parameters configured
+  - [ ] Conversion tracking active
+  - [ ] Attribution model defined (first touch, last touch, multi-touch)
+  - [ ] A/B test framework ready
+
+- [ ] **Q32: Baseline data collected?**
+  - Current awareness: ___% (pre-campaign)
+  - Current conversion rate: ___%
+  - Current competitor share of voice: ___
+
+### Frequency Planning
+
+- [ ] **Q33: Frequency target per prospect?**
+  - Reeves minimum: 7 exposures
+  - Planned frequency: ___ exposures over ___ timeframe
+  - Channels used for frequency: ___
+
+- [ ] **Q34: Frequency distribution planned?**
+
+  | Touchpoint | Frequency Target | USP Consistent? |
+  |-----------|-----------------|----------------|
+  | Paid ads | ___ | [ ] YES / [ ] NO |
+  | Email sequence | ___ | [ ] YES / [ ] NO |
+  | Retargeting | ___ | [ ] YES / [ ] NO |
+  | Landing page | ___ | [ ] YES / [ ] NO |
+  | Content/organic | ___ | [ ] YES / [ ] NO |
+
+### Campaign Longevity Rules
+
+- [ ] **Q35: Is there a "kill switch" criteria defined?**
+  - Campaign will be changed ONLY when:
+  - [ ] Usage Pull drops below ___% for ___ consecutive weeks
+  - [ ] Penetration plateaus at ___% for ___ consecutive weeks
+  - NOT when: team is bored, creative director wants to try something new, competitor changed theirs
+
+- [ ] **Q36: Variation plan for execution (not proposition)?**
+  - Number of execution variations planned: ___
+  - All variations deliver the SAME proposition: [ ] YES / [ ] NO
+  - If NO: you are varying the proposition, not the execution. Fix.
+
+**Penetration Measurement Score: ___/8 (items 29-36)**
+
+---
+
+## PART 5: Demonstration-First Verification
+
+### Can the USP Be Demonstrated?
+
+- [ ] **Q37: Demonstration feasibility assessment:**
+
+  | Demonstration Type | Possible? | How? |
+  |-------------------|----------|------|
+  | Physical demo (product in action) | [ ] | ___ |
+  | Before/after contrast | [ ] | ___ |
+  | Visual metaphor (Anacin hammers) | [ ] | ___ |
+  | Statistical demonstration | [ ] | ___ |
+  | Testimonial demonstration | [ ] | ___ |
+
+  At least ONE type should be marked "Possible." If none: the USP may be too abstract.
+
+- [ ] **Q38: Is the demonstration USED in the current copy?**
+  - [ ] YES, as the CORE of the creative = EXCELLENT
+  - [ ] YES, as supporting element = GOOD (could be better)
+  - [ ] NO, the benefit is only STATED, not shown = WEAKNESS (fix if possible)
+
+- [ ] **Q39: Does the demonstration prove the USP DIRECTLY?**
+  - The demonstration must prove the SPECIFIC claim made
+  - PASS: Bic pen dragged on asphalt + writes perfectly = durability PROVEN
+  - FAIL: Beautiful sunset + voiceover about product = nothing proven
+
+- [ ] **Q40: Simplicity test -- could a child understand the demonstration?**
+  - [ ] YES = Clear enough for mass audience
+  - [ ] NO = Too complex. Simplify the demonstration.
+
+- [ ] **Q41: Is the demonstration repeatable by the consumer?**
+  - Best demos happen every time the product is used (M&M's)
+  - [ ] YES = Built-in reinforcement with every use
+  - [ ] NO = One-time demonstration (still valid, but less powerful)
+
+**Demonstration Score: ___/5 (items 37-41)**
+
+---
+
+## PART 6: Reeves Discipline Violations Scan
+
+### Forbidden Elements Check
+
+Scan the copy for violations of Reeves' principles. Each violation
+must be corrected before proceeding.
+
+- [ ] **V1: Multiple claims present?**
+  - [ ] CLEAN -- Only one proposition throughout
+  - [ ] VIOLATION -- Multiple claims detected (list): ___
+
+- [ ] **V2: Abstract benefits used?**
+  Scan for: "better quality," "innovative," "revolutionary," "superior service,"
+  "cutting-edge," "next-generation," "transformative," "state-of-the-art"
+  - [ ] CLEAN -- No abstract benefits found
+  - [ ] VIOLATION -- Abstract terms detected (list): ___
+
+- [ ] **V3: Brand image without proposition?**
+  Is there ANY section that creates "mood" or "image" without stating a benefit?
+  - [ ] CLEAN -- Every section advances the USP
+  - [ ] VIOLATION -- Image-only sections detected (location): ___
+
+- [ ] **V4: Commodity language?**
+  Could the same words describe any competitor's product?
+  - [ ] CLEAN -- Language is proprietary and specific
+  - [ ] VIOLATION -- Commodity language detected (list): ___
+
+- [ ] **V5: Proposition changes across the piece?**
+  Does the copy start with one claim and drift to another?
+  - [ ] CLEAN -- Same proposition from start to finish
+  - [ ] VIOLATION -- Proposition drift detected at: ___
+
+- [ ] **V6: Product buried or delayed?**
+  - Product first mentioned at: ___ (line/second)
+  - [ ] CLEAN -- Product appears within first 5 seconds / first line
+  - [ ] VIOLATION -- Product delayed beyond acceptable threshold
+
+- [ ] **V7: Entertainment competing with USP?**
+  - [ ] CLEAN -- All creative elements serve the proposition
+  - [ ] VIOLATION -- Vampire elements detected (list): ___
+
+- [ ] **V8: Unsupported claims?**
+  Is any claim made without proof or demonstration?
+  - [ ] CLEAN -- Every claim is supported
+  - [ ] VIOLATION -- Unsupported claims found (list): ___
+
+**Violations Found: ___/8**
+**Violations Score: (8 - violations) = ___/8**
+
+---
+
+## SCORING MATRIX
+
+### Section Scores
+
+| Section | Raw Score | Max | Weighted Score | Weight |
+|---------|----------|-----|---------------|--------|
+| 1. USP Validation (3 Requirements) | ___/15 | 15 | (raw/15) x 30 = ___ | 30% |
+| 2. Single Proposition Audit | ___/7 | 7 | (raw/7) x 20 = ___ | 20% |
+| 3. Vampire Creativity Detector | ___/6 | 6 | (raw/6) x 15 = ___ | 15% |
+| 4. Penetration Measurement | ___/8 | 8 | (raw/8) x 10 = ___ | 10% |
+| 5. Demonstration Verification | ___/5 | 5 | (raw/5) x 10 = ___ | 10% |
+| 6. Discipline Violations | ___/8 | 8 | (raw/8) x 15 = ___ | 15% |
+| **TOTAL** | | | **___/100** | **100%** |
+
+### Decision Matrix
+
+| Score | Decision | Action |
+|-------|----------|--------|
+| **90-100** | STRONG PASS | USP is structurally sound. Ready for production. |
+| **80-89** | PASS | Minor adjustments needed. Address flagged items. Proceed. |
+| **70-79** | CONDITIONAL | Significant weaknesses. Revise flagged sections. Re-audit. |
+| **60-69** | FAIL | Structural USP problems. Major revision required before re-audit. |
+| **Below 60** | REWRITE | The proposition is fundamentally flawed. Return to USP definition. |
+
+### Automatic Fail Conditions
+
+Regardless of total score, the audit FAILS if ANY of the following are true:
+
+| # | Condition | Status |
+|---|-----------|--------|
+| 1 | USP Requirement 2 (Unique) has ANY item failed | [ ] |
+| 2 | Multiple propositions detected (Q16 count > 1) | [ ] |
+| 3 | Competitor-Name Swap Test passed for ANY competitor (Q6) | [ ] |
+| 4 | Product not named in first 5 seconds / first line (Q26) | [ ] |
+| 5 | Vampire element dominates audience recall (Q24) | [ ] |
+| 6 | No measurement plan exists (Q29-Q30 both blank) | [ ] |
+
+**If ANY automatic fail condition is checked: FAIL regardless of score.**
+
+---
+
+## QUICK REFERENCE: The Reeves Test
+
+For rapid assessment when the full audit is not practical, use this
+5-question test. Each question is binary. All 5 must pass.
+
+```
+THE REEVES TEST (5 Questions)
+
+1. CAN YOU STATE THE USP IN UNDER 15 WORDS?
+   [ ] YES / [ ] NO
+
+2. DOES THE COMPETITOR-NAME SWAP FAIL?
+   (Replace your brand with competitor's. Does claim still work?)
+   [ ] YES, it fails (GOOD) / [ ] NO, it still works (BAD)
+
+3. IS THERE ONLY ONE PROPOSITION IN THE ENTIRE PIECE?
+   [ ] YES / [ ] NO
+
+4. WOULD THE AUDIENCE REMEMBER THE PRODUCT, NOT JUST THE AD?
+   [ ] YES / [ ] NO
+
+5. IS THE USP BACKED BY A DEMONSTRATION OR PROOF?
+   [ ] YES / [ ] NO
+
+RESULT: 5/5 = PROCEED. Anything less = STOP AND FIX.
+```
+
+---
+
+## USAGE NOTES
+
+### When to Use This Checklist
+
+| Context | Which Parts | Depth |
+|---------|------------|-------|
+| MUP/MUS statement validation (HELIX Phase 5-6) | Parts 1 + 2 + Quick Reference | Full |
+| Headline / hook writing | Parts 1 + 2 + 3 + Quick Reference | Full |
+| Criativo production | Parts 1 + 2 + 3 + 5 | Full |
+| VSL production | Parts 1 + 2 + 3 + 5 + 6 | Full |
+| Landing Page hero block | Parts 1 + 2 + 3 + 5 | Full |
+| Email subject line | Quick Reference only | Rapid |
+| Campaign planning | Parts 1 + 4 | Strategic |
+| Post-production review | All parts | Complete |
+| Quick sanity check | Quick Reference | 30 seconds |
+
+### MCP Integration
+
+After completing this checklist:
+- Run `blind_critic` on the USP statement (copy_type: "headline", threshold >= 8)
+- Run `emotional_stress_test` on USP + supporting copy (genericidade >= 8)
+- Run `validate_gate` for the appropriate phase
+- If USP is for MUP/MUS: also complete `brown-mechanism-audit.md`
+
+### Companion Checklists
+
+- `brown-mechanism-audit.md` -- Validates the MECHANISM behind the USP
+- `schwartz-awareness-calibration.md` -- Calibrates the USP to the right awareness level
+- `hopkins-scientific-checklist.md` -- Scientific advertising audit (testability, specificity, proof)
+- `bencivenga-persuasion-audit.md` -- Persuasion architecture validation
+- Anti-Homogeneization rules (`anti-homogeneization.md`) -- Logo Test, Specificity Score
+
+### Relationship to Ecosystem Gates
+
+| Gate | This Checklist's Role |
+|------|----------------------|
+| HELIX Phase 5 (MUP) | USP Validation Part 1 must PASS for Sexy Cause |
+| HELIX Phase 6 (MUS) | USP Validation Part 1 + Demonstration Part 5 must PASS for Gimmick Name |
+| Pre-Production | Full checklist must PASS (>= 80/100) |
+| Post-Production (blind_critic) | Violations scan (Part 6) addresses critic feedback |
+| BLACK Validation | USP score feeds into BLACK overall score |
+
+---
+
+*Checklist v1.0 -- Rosser Reeves USP Audit*
+*Companion to: reeves.md (Voice DNA Profile)*
+*Source: Reality in Advertising (1961), Ted Bates Copy Laboratory*
+*Sections: 6 | Items: 41+ | Threshold: 80/100 + No Automatic Fail Conditions*