@sellable/mcp 0.1.200 → 0.1.202

package/agents/post-find-leads-message-scout.md

@@ -119,11 +119,29 @@ blocker.
 - Engagement-source personalization is a special case, not the default opener.
   Do not write `saw you {{engagement_context}} on {{post_context}}`, `saw you
 reacted to`, `saw you engaging with`, or equivalent source-citation copy as a
-  default hook. Only refer to engagement when the line is self-aware and
-  low-certainty, for example: `you might not remember the thread, but I found
-you through a [topic] discussion and your [observable role/company context]
-looked close to [problem]`. Otherwise omit the engagement signal and use
-  role/company/problem context.
+  default hook. For LinkedIn-post-sourced campaigns, you may reference the
+  source when it explains why the note exists, but keep it topic-level, not
+  activity-log-level. Good: `saw you in a few conversations around [topic], so
+hope this is relevant`, `saw you in a few conversations about [topic], so
+may be off, but this seemed relevant`, `saw you might be interested in [topic],
+so hope this is relevant`, `hope this is relevant if [topic] is on your plate`,
+or `saw you raise your hand for [topic], so figured this was (hopefully) worth sending`.
+The cheekier `saw you raise your hand for [topic] (creepy to reach out based
+on that, i know) - but this felt too on the nose to ignore` version is also
+allowed when the sender's voice can carry it. Bad: `you commented on...`, `you reacted
+to...`, `saw you engaging with...`, `your LinkedIn activity...`, `you might
+not remember the thread...`, or `found you through [source] and your role
+looked close...`. Otherwise omit the engagement signal and use role/company/problem context.
+- Do not use a PS to defend the source. Lines like `p.s. if the source thread
+  was just casual reading, ignore me` or `only reaching out where the role and
+  topic looked close` are blocked. If the source is too weak, omit it.
+- Do not assert fit from title/company. `Your [role] role at [company] looked
+  close to this problem` is blocked. Keep the apologetic uncertainty instead:
+  `may be off, but if [workflow] is anywhere near your lane...`.
+- Low-pressure relevance opt-outs are allowed when they do not defend the
+  source: `p.s. if this is nowhere near your outbound workflow, ignore me`.
+- Do not use `Caught` as opener language. It reads unnatural in LinkedIn
+  outreach.
 - Do not describe the sender in third person inside the outbound message.
   Lines like `p.s. Saju's angle is...`, `Christian's angle is...`, or
   `[sender]'s approach is...` are internal notes leaking into copy. If the point

package/dist/tools/navigation.d.ts

@@ -38,6 +38,8 @@ type WorkflowTableMessageStats = {
 type NavigationDebugPayload = Record<string, unknown>;
 export declare function logNavigationDebug(event: string, payload?: NavigationDebugPayload, campaignId?: string | null): void;
 type CreateCampaignStepId = "campaign-created" | "pick-provider" | "provider-search" | "confirm-lead-list" | "filter-rules" | "messages" | "settings" | "sequence" | "send" | "running";
+export type GeneratedMessageApprovalGateMissing = "generatedMessages" | "approvedGeneratedMessage";
+export declare function getGeneratedMessageApprovalGateMissing(stats?: WorkflowTableMessageStats | null, statsChecked?: boolean): GeneratedMessageApprovalGateMissing[];
 export declare const navigationToolDefinitions: {
     name: string;
     description: string;

package/dist/tools/navigation.js

@@ -251,12 +251,9 @@ function getApprovedGeneratedMessageCount(stats) {
         return null;
     return stats.approvedCount ?? null;
 }
-function checkMessages(campaign, stats, statsChecked = false) {
+export function getGeneratedMessageApprovalGateMissing(stats, statsChecked = false) {
     const missing = [];
-    if (!hasApprovedMessageTemplate(campaign)) {
-        missing.push("approvedMessageTemplate");
-    }
-    if (statsChecked && hasApprovedMessageTemplate(campaign)) {
+    if (statsChecked) {
         const generatedCount = getGeneratedMessageCount(stats) ?? 0;
         const approvedCount = getApprovedGeneratedMessageCount(stats) ?? 0;
         if (generatedCount <= 0) {
@@ -266,6 +263,10 @@ function checkMessages(campaign, stats, statsChecked = false) {
             missing.push("approvedGeneratedMessage");
         }
     }
+    return missing;
+}
+function checkMessages(stats, statsChecked = false) {
+    const missing = getGeneratedMessageApprovalGateMissing(stats, statsChecked);
     return { stepId: "messages", missing };
 }
 function checkSettings(campaign) {
@@ -541,7 +542,7 @@ export function computeCampaignNavigationStateFromCampaign(campaign, options) {
     }
     const evaluateTailState = shouldEvaluateTailState(campaign);
     if (evaluateTailState) {
-        checks.push(checkMessages(campaign, options.messageStats ?? null, options.messageStatsChecked === true), checkSettings(campaign), checkSequence(campaign));
+        checks.push(checkMessages(options.messageStats ?? null, options.messageStatsChecked === true), checkSettings(campaign), checkSequence(campaign));
     }
     let computedStep = "campaign-created";
     let blockedAt = null;
@@ -564,11 +565,9 @@ export function computeCampaignNavigationStateFromCampaign(campaign, options) {
         computedStep = isRunningCampaign(campaign) ? "running" : "send";
     }
     const stepForHeadless = blockedAt ?? computedStep;
-    const waitingOnMessageTemplateAfterFilters = blockedAt === "messages" &&
-        campaign.enableICPFilters === true &&
-        hasActiveRubrics(campaign) &&
-        !hasApprovedMessageTemplate(campaign);
-    const waitingOnGeneratedMessageApproval = blockedAt === "messages" && hasApprovedMessageTemplate(campaign);
+    const waitingOnGeneratedMessageApproval = blockedAt === "messages" &&
+        (missing.includes("generatedMessages") ||
+            missing.includes("approvedGeneratedMessage"));
     const expectedHeadlessStep = stepForHeadless === "campaign-created"
         ? "create-offer"
         : stepForHeadless === "provider-search"
@@ -576,11 +575,9 @@ export function computeCampaignNavigationStateFromCampaign(campaign, options) {
             : stepForHeadless === "filter-rules"
                 ? "create-icp-rubric"
                 : stepForHeadless === "messages"
-                    ? waitingOnMessageTemplateAfterFilters
-                        ? "apply-icp-rubric"
-                        : waitingOnGeneratedMessageApproval
-                            ? "auto-execute-messaging"
-                            : "messages"
+                    ? waitingOnGeneratedMessageApproval
+                        ? "auto-execute-messaging"
+                        : "messages"
                     : stepForHeadless === "settings"
                         ? "settings"
                         : stepForHeadless === "sequence"

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "@sellable/mcp",
-  "version": "0.1.200",
+  "version": "0.1.202",
   "type": "module",
   "description": "Sellable MCP server for Claude Code and Codex campaign workflows",
   "main": "dist/index.js",

package/skills/create-campaign/references/ai-native-tokens.md

@@ -104,6 +104,10 @@ message to you (yes, it's that meta)
 p.s. yes, this message was entirely written and sent via claude code 😊
 ```
 
+The softer alternate hook is also allowed when the message needs less cheek:
+`saw you raise your hand for claude + gtm, so figured this was (hopefully)
+worth sending.`
+
 Note what the tokens DO:
 
 - `[PERSONALIZED REASON - their team size, role, or why they're a perfect fit]`
@@ -126,10 +130,15 @@ should err toward explicit:
 
 ```text
 [PERSONALIZATION_LINE — write ONE short sentence (8-15 words) that anchors
-this message to {{first_name}} as a person. Name what they personally DO,
-write about, focus on, or build TOWARD (not what their company SELLS).
-DO: use verb-led shapes — "Saw your work helping X", "Your writing on Y
-caught my eye", "Your focus on Z is rare in this segment".
+this message to why it might matter now. Connect one observed role/company/
+activity signal to the buyer problem or offer.
+DO: use low-certainty bridge shapes: "hope this is relevant if X is live",
+"saw you might be interested in X, so hope this is relevant", or "figured this
+might matter if X is on your plate". For LinkedIn-post-sourced campaigns, a
+topic-level bridge like "saw you in a few conversations around X, so hope this
+is relevant" is allowed.
+DON'T: recap their resume, list companies, or say their "background stood
+out" — that tells them about themselves without creating a reason for the note.
 DON'T: name a product their company sells ("your dashboard for X", "your
 platform for Y") — they BUILD the product, they don't have one.
 DON'T: use source-citation phrasing ("Saw your post about", "Your bio

package/skills/create-campaign/references/token-fill-examples.md

@@ -20,8 +20,10 @@ prospect's context.
 Examples:
 
 - Good: "saw you're hiring AE talent after opening the Austin office"
-- Good: "noticed your team has been talking more openly about runtime exposure"
-- Good: "looks like you're still growing through founder-led content"
+- Good: "hope this is relevant if Austin hiring is still live"
+- Good: "saw you might be interested in runtime exposure, so hope this is relevant"
+- Good: "saw you in a few conversations around runtime exposure, so hope this is relevant"
+- Good: "figured this might matter if founder-led content is still driving growth"
 
 Why these work:
 
@@ -58,13 +60,17 @@ Why these fail:
 
 Smooth:
 
-- "not sure if this is relevant but it looks like you're pushing into enterprise accounts now"
-- "saw the post on AI exposure and thought this might actually be relevant"
+- "hope this is relevant if enterprise is still the push"
+- "saw you might be interested in AI exposure, so hope this is relevant"
+- "saw you in a few conversations around AI exposure, so hope this is relevant"
+- "figured this might matter if outbound is part of the expansion plan"
 
 Awkward:
 
 - "not sure if this is relevant but according to your recent post you are pushing into enterprise accounts"
 - "I saw on LinkedIn that you recently posted about AI exposure and therefore wanted to contact you"
+- "Your GTM and international growth work at Nas Daily and 1000media looked close to the kind of outbound work Sellable is built for"
+- "Your background across creator media and market expansion stood out"
 
 ## Persona-Specific Notes
 
@@ -86,6 +92,8 @@ Revvix / security positioning:
 ## Red Flags
 
 - the token reads like CRM metadata
+- the token only tells the prospect facts about themselves
+- the token uses company names as decoration without a buyer-relevant bridge
 - the token makes the sentence longer without making it better
 - the token sounds like a compliment sandwich
 - the token could be swapped into any message without changing meaning

package/skills/create-campaign-brief/references/examples/briefs/sellable-dev.md

@@ -61,7 +61,8 @@ p.s. yes, this message was entirely written and sent via claude code 😊
 
 "saw you raise your hand for claude + gtm (creepy to reach out based on that, i know) - but this felt too on the nose to ignore."
 
-Uses parentheses (feels human, AI rarely writes this way). Self-aware about the signal without being apologetic.
+Uses parentheses for self-awareness without being apologetic. Softer alternate:
+"saw you raise your hand for claude + gtm, so figured this was (hopefully) worth sending."
 
 ## Product Line
 

package/skills/create-campaign-v2/references/ai-tells.md

@@ -33,21 +33,26 @@ think you'd have an opinion on..."`
 
 **Severity:** REJECT
 
-## Tell #2 — Explicit recipient-fact reference in opener
+## Tell #2 — Plain source-citation recipient fact in opener
 
 **Pattern:** `Hey {{first_name}} — saw you posted...` / `Hey
 {{first_name}}, your X is...` / `I noticed your...` / `Saw the X you
-posted...` — opening sentence leads with a recipient-specific
-reference.
+posted...` — opening sentence leads with a bare recipient-specific
+reference and no self-aware reason the note might matter.
 
 **Why it's an AI tell:** Talking AT the recipient instead of WITH
-them. Real founders open with their own reality, not by
-interrogating the recipient's data feed. `"I noticed your..."` reads
-as scraped intel.
-
-**Allowed alternative:** Open with sender reality (Block 1); let
-recipient gravity show up in Block 3 as a LIGHT callback. Refer to
-their work CASUALLY without `"saw your X"`.
+them. Real founders do not interrogate the recipient's data feed or
+recite profile facts. `"I noticed your..."` reads as scraped intel.
+
+**Allowed alternative:** Use a concise permissioned bridge:
+`"Hope this is relevant if X is still live."`, `"Saw you might be
+interested in X, so hope this is relevant."`, `"Saw you in a few
+conversations around X, so hope this is relevant."` for LinkedIn-post-sourced
+campaigns, or the self-aware
+`"saw you raise your hand for X, so figured this was (hopefully) worth
+sending"` or `"saw you raise your hand for X (creepy to reach out based
+on that, i know) - but this felt too on the nose to ignore"` shapes when the
+engagement source is the reason for the note.
 
 **Severity:** REJECT
 
@@ -238,6 +243,68 @@ reference-file text, brief-template text, prompt text, and audit
 notes are fine — this is a body-level output guard, not a
 general-prose style rule.
 
+## Tell #14 — Resume recap personalization bridge
+
+**Pattern:** A personalization line that strings together prior
+employers, roles, abstract tags, or a product-centered bridge without a
+buyer-relevant reason. Example: `"Your GTM and international growth work
+at Nas Daily and 1000media looked close to the kind of outbound work
+Sellable is built for."`
+
+**Why it's an AI tell:** It reads like a LinkedIn parser compressed a
+profile into tags. Real senders do not tell prospects their own resume
+back to them, then pivot to the product. The line is name-drop-heavy,
+abstract, and swappable across hundreds of leads.
+
+**Allowed alternative:** Use a short relevance hypothesis that connects
+one observed signal to why the note may matter: `"Hope this is relevant
+if market expansion is still on your plate."`, `"Saw you might be
+interested in Claude + GTM, so hope this is relevant."`, or `"Saw you in
+a few conversations around international growth, so hope this is relevant."`
+
+**Severity:** REJECT
+
+## Tell #15 — Source-thread disclaimer
+
+**Pattern:** `"You might not remember the thread, but I found you
+through..."` in the opener, `"found you through [source] and your role
+looked close..."`, or a PS like `"if the source thread was just casual
+reading, ignore me"` / `"only reaching out where the role and topic
+looked close."`
+
+**Why it's an AI tell:** It exposes sourcing mechanics instead of
+creating relevance. The message sounds like a lead scraper explaining
+why it picked the recipient, then asking the recipient to forgive the
+reach-out.
+
+**Allowed alternative:** Use a concise topic-level bridge when the
+source is meaningful, then continue with apologetic uncertainty:
+`"Saw you in a few conversations about LinkedIn outreach, so may be
+off, but this seemed relevant."` or `"Saw you in a few conversations
+around LinkedIn outreach, so hope this is relevant."` If the source was
+only casual reading or the role/topic connection is weak, omit the
+personalization line and open from the buyer pain.
+
+**Severity:** REJECT
+
+## Tell #16 — Assumptive title-fit opener
+
+**Pattern:** `"Your enterprise sales role at Odoo looked close to this
+outbound campaign problem."` / `"your [role] role at [company] looked
+close to this problem."`
+
+**Why it's an AI tell:** It turns title/company metadata into a fit
+claim the recipient did not make. The line tells the buyer about
+themselves and assumes the workflow belongs to them.
+
+**Allowed alternative:** Keep the apologetic uncertainty without
+asserting fit: `"May be off, but if outbound is anywhere near your
+lane, this might be useful."` A low-pressure PS such as `"p.s. if this
+is nowhere near your outbound workflow, ignore me"` is allowed when it
+does not narrate the source.
+
+**Severity:** REJECT
+
 ---
 
 ## How to add new tells

package/skills/create-campaign-v2/references/thomas-revision-filters.md

@@ -74,10 +74,12 @@ Revise or reject the sample when any of these happen.
 - **actions are implied, not stated** — e.g. "runs that chain as AI agents" when a clearer version would name the specific actions (verb + object, one per line)
 - **category-level opener used when a per-lead signal exists** — if `lead-sample.json` carries any per-lead signal (post, hire, visible tool, topic engagement), the opener must reference it. Category-level openers of shape `"Most [category] teams still do X by hand"` are only acceptable when zero per-lead signal is in the sample. When a category-level opener is used as fallback, Findings must flag it explicitly
 - **mind-reading from engagement signals** — a topic engagement, post, public activity, role, company, or hiring trigger does not prove buyer intent. Reject phrases like `"AI-GTM stack is clearly on your mind"`, `"you're clearly focused on..."`, `"obviously relevant"`, or `"already thinking about..."` unless that exact priority is explicitly present in `lead-sample.json`. Translate to low-certainty buyer context or omit the signal from copy.
-- **source-y signal narration** — reject `"saw you on..."`, `"saw you around..."`, `"saw you engaging with..."`, `"your LinkedIn activity..."`, or any line that makes the recipient feel watched unless the chosen archived motion is intentionally self-aware about the signal. Translate the signal into a natural buyer-context line or omit it.
+- **source-y signal narration** — reject `"saw you on..."`, `"saw you engaging with..."`, `"you commented on..."`, `"your LinkedIn activity..."`, `"you might not remember the thread..."`, `"found you through [source] and your role looked close..."`, or any line that makes the recipient feel watched unless the chosen archived motion is intentionally self-aware about the signal. For LinkedIn-post-sourced campaigns, a topic-level bridge is allowed when it explains why the note exists and stays apologetically uncertain: `"saw you in a few conversations about [topic], so may be off, but this seemed relevant."` or `"saw you in a few conversations around [topic], so hope this is relevant."` Translate the signal into natural buyer context or omit it.
+- **assumptive title-fit opener** — reject `"Your [role] role at [company] looked close to this problem"` or `"looked close to this outbound campaign problem"`. This asserts fit from title/company. Keep the apologetic uncertainty instead: `"may be off, but if [workflow] is anywhere near your lane..."`.
 - **internal-metric flex** — reject compute time, token/cache details, model names, agent-counts, orchestration internals, or similar process metrics unless the brief proves the buyer cares about that exact detail. `~5 min of compute per message` is not buyer value by itself.
 - **action lines are parallel (same subject, e.g. `It X` / `It Y` / `It Z`) but rendered as one-line paragraphs instead of bullets** — parallel action lines are the bullet case. One-line paragraphs are only for actions that carry a short narrative clause
 - **PS carries a second proof beat that doesn't answer a different objection** — the second beat must open a dimension beat #1 didn't address (e.g. technical reliability when beat #1 was operator empathy; named backing when beat #1 was founder track record). Default PS is ONE beat
+- **apologetic source-thread PS** — reject `p.s. if the source thread was just casual reading, ignore me`, `only reaching out where the role and topic looked close`, or any PS that defends why the recipient was sourced. If the source is too weak, omit the personalization line. A relevance-risk PS such as `p.s. if this is nowhere near your outbound workflow, ignore me` is allowed because it lowers pressure without narrating the source.
 - **subject line uses the same banned glue jargon as the body** — any B2B compound noun the buyer wouldn't say naturally in conversation. Subject follows the same jargon rules as the body
 - **jargon that a 5th-grade reader could not parse** — any B2B compound noun the buyer wouldn't say naturally in conversation. Common examples across motions: "handoff", "rip-and-replace", "pane of glass", "single source of truth", "alert fatigue", "top of funnel", "time to hire". Keep product and tool names that the buyer recognizes; cut the glue language around them
 - em dashes in copy that is otherwise plainspoken
@@ -326,12 +328,12 @@ frame ("your BioRender post").
 
 ### Filter 7 — Anti-talk-at filter
 
-**Rule.** The OPENING SENTENCE must not lead with a
-recipient-specific reference. The opener must establish sender
-reality FIRST — what we're building, who we are, why we're reaching
-out — before any callback to the recipient. A "talk-at" opener reads
-like a cold-scraper addressing a target; a "sender-first" opener
-reads like a founder introducing themselves.
+**Rule.** The OPENING SENTENCE must not lead with a source-citation,
+resume recap, or bare recipient fact. The opener can be sender-first
+or permissioned relevance, but it must establish why the note might
+matter. A "talk-at" opener reads like a cold-scraper addressing a
+target; a good opener reads like a founder sending something that may
+actually be relevant.
 
 **Detection patterns to REJECT as the opener (non-exhaustive):**
 
@@ -343,17 +345,35 @@ reads like a founder introducing themselves.
 - `Six months into your...`
 - `Your [company] post last month...`
 - `Just read your [X]...`
+- `You might not remember the thread, but I found you through [source]...`
+- `I found you through a LinkedIn outreach discussion and your [role] at [company] looked close to this problem.`
+- `Caught your profile...`
+- `Your GTM and international growth work at [Company A] and [Company B] looked close to what [Product] is built for.`
+- `Your enterprise sales role at Odoo looked close to this outbound campaign problem.`
 
 Recipient-specific gravity MAY appear in body sentences 2-4 as a
 LIGHT callback (one casual sentence, no verbatim quote, no date
-reference), but never as the lede. The first impression must read
-as "a founder reaching out about something they built" — not
-"someone who scraped me."
+reference), and MAY lead the opener only when it is a concise
+permissioned bridge or intentionally self-aware engagement line. The
+first impression must read as "this may be relevant" — not "someone
+who scraped me."
 
-**Acceptable opener shapes (sender-first):**
+**Acceptable opener shapes:**
 
 - `Hey {{first_name}}, I'm building [X] — [what it does in one plain
 sentence].`
+- `Hey {{first_name}}, hope this is relevant if [buyer context] is
+still on your plate.`
+- `Hey {{first_name}}, may be off, but if [workflow] is anywhere near
+your lane, this might be useful.`
+- `Hey {{first_name}}, saw you might be interested in [topic], so hope
+this is relevant.`
+- `Hey {{first_name}}, saw you in a few conversations around [topic],
+so hope this is relevant.`
+- `Hey {{first_name}}, saw you raise your hand for [topic], so figured
+this was (hopefully) worth sending.`
+- `Hey {{first_name}}, saw you raise your hand for [topic] (creepy to
+reach out based on that, i know) - but this felt too on the nose to ignore.`
 - `Hey {{first_name}}, quick one. My co-founder and I left [prior
 role] to build [X].`
 - `Hey {{first_name}}, reaching out because [one-line sender

package/skills/generate-messages/SKILL.md

@@ -170,10 +170,20 @@ writing the Token Fill Rules or any reusable template notes.
   `{{company}}`, or another noun-shaped token when the line needs judgment.
 - Use this shape for any hook, bridge, or row-specific relevance line:
   `[PERSONALIZATION_LINE — Intent: write one short sentence that anchors the
-note to the prospect's buyer-relevant activity. DO: name what they do, write
-about, focus on, or build toward. DON'T: name a product their company sells,
-use source-citation phrasing, or use generic nouns like "your work".
+note to why this might matter now. DO: connect one observable role/company/
+activity signal to the buyer problem or offer with low-certainty language like
+"hope this is relevant if...", "saw you might be interested in...", "saw you in
+a few conversations around...", or "figured this might matter if...". DON'T: recap
+their resume, list companies, compliment their background, name a product their
+company sells, use source-citation phrasing, or use generic nouns like "your
+work".
 FALLBACK: if unsupported, omit the entire line.]`
+- The rendered personalization line should usually be 6-14 words. If it needs
+  two clauses, multiple companies, or abstract tags like `GTM`, `international
+  growth`, and `outbound work` to make sense, it is probably analysis leakage,
+  not sendable copy.
+- Personalization must not only tell the prospect about themselves. A good line
+  creates a reason for the note: observed context -> why this might be relevant.
 - The bracketed token belongs in the reusable template / token plan only. The
   rendered `Selected Winner` and sample messages must contain the composed
   sentence or no line at all; never show the bracket to the buyer.
@@ -313,17 +323,86 @@ artifact.**
    - `your team is obviously paying attention to...`
    - `you're already thinking about...`
    - `this is obviously relevant because...`
+   - `your {{role}} role at {{company}} looked close to this problem`
+   - `your {{role}} role at {{company}} looked close to this outbound campaign problem`
    - `saw you on {{recent_signal}}`
    - `saw you around {{recent_signal}}`
    - `saw you engaging with {{recent_signal}}`
 
    Safer shapes:
 
-   - `not sure if this is relevant, but if {{signal_topic}} is part of what you're testing, this may be useful`
-   - `this may be too specific, but the {{signal_topic}} angle felt close enough to send`
-   - `if {{workflow_signal}} is relevant at {{company}}, this might be useful`
-   - `thought this was worth sending because {{signal_topic}} touches the same problem`
-   - `you might not remember the thread, but I found you through a {{signal_topic}} discussion and your {{observable_role_context}} looked close to {{problem_context}}`
+   - `hope this is relevant if {{signal_topic}} is part of the plan`
+   - `saw you might be interested in {{signal_topic}}, so hope this is relevant`
+   - `saw you in a few conversations around {{signal_topic}}, so hope this is relevant`
+   - `saw you in a few conversations about {{signal_topic}}, so may be off, but this seemed relevant`
+   - `may be off, but if {{workflow_signal}} is anywhere near your lane, this might be useful`
+   - `if {{workflow_signal}} is nowhere near your lane, ignore me`
+   - `figured this might matter if {{workflow_signal}} is live at {{company}}`
+   - `thought of {{company}} because {{observable_signal}} points at {{problem_context}}`
+   - `saw you raise your hand for {{signal_topic}}, so figured this was (hopefully) worth sending` only when the engagement signal is the actual source
+   - `saw you raise your hand for {{signal_topic}} (creepy to reach out based on that, i know) - but this felt too on the nose to ignore` only when the engagement signal is the actual source and the sender's voice can carry the cheekier aside
+
+   For LinkedIn-post-sourced campaigns (commenters, reactors, lead magnet
+   replies, or scraped conversations), it is acceptable to reference the
+   conversation when it explains why the note exists. Keep it topic-level, not
+   activity-log-level: `saw you in a few conversations around
+   {{signal_topic}}, so hope this is relevant` is acceptable; `saw you
+   commented on {{post_context}}` and `your LinkedIn activity around...` are
+   not.
+
+   Keep the apologetic nature, but aim it at uncertainty, not surveillance.
+   Good: `saw you in a few conversations about outbound, so may be off, but
+   this seemed relevant`, `may be off, but if outbound is anywhere near your
+   lane...`, `if this is nowhere near your outbound workflow, ignore me`, `hope
+   this is relevant if...`. Bad: `your role at {{company}} looked close...`,
+   because it asserts fit from a title and tells the buyer about themselves.
+
+   Block wordier source narration such as `you might not remember the thread,
+   but I found you through a {{signal_topic}} discussion and your
+   {{observable_role_context}} looked close to {{problem_context}}`. It reads
+   like sourcing metadata plus resume recap. Replace it with the shorter
+   topic-level bridge above, or omit the personalization line and start with
+   the buyer pain.
+
+### Personalization compression gate
+
+Before a personalization line can survive into a template, rendered sample, or
+Selected Winner, check it against these gates:
+
+- **Bridge, not recap:** it must make why the note might matter feel earned. A
+  line that only says where the person worked, what role they held, or what
+  their company does is blocked.
+- **Short by default:** target 6-14 words. A longer line must earn every word by
+  improving relevance or reducing assumption risk.
+- **One inference only:** use one observed signal and one buyer-relevant bridge.
+  Do not stack two employers, two roles, and the product category into one line.
+- **No product-centered bridge:** do not write `looked close to what [Product]
+  is built for`, `relevant to our platform`, or similar copy that centers the
+  sender's product before the buyer feels seen.
+- **No title-fit assertion:** do not write `your [role] role at [company]
+  looked close to this problem`. A title/company can be the private reason you
+  selected the row, but the buyer-facing line should stay conditional:
+  `may be off, but if [workflow] is anywhere near your lane...`.
+- **Swap test:** if another founder/operator could receive the line after only
+  changing names and companies, cut it or make the bridge more specific.
+- **Tell-about-themselves test:** if the line merely reports a fact the buyer
+  already knows, rewrite it into a relevance hypothesis (`hope this is relevant
+  if...`) or omit it.
+
+Blocked:
+
+- `Your GTM and international growth work at Nas Daily and 1000media looked close to the kind of outbound work Sellable is built for.`
+- `You might not remember the thread, but I found you through a LinkedIn outreach discussion and your sales development role at Gainsight looked close to this problem.`
+- `Your enterprise sales role at Odoo looked close to this outbound campaign problem.`
+
+Better:
+
+- `hope this is relevant if market expansion is still on your plate.`
+- `saw you in a few conversations around international growth, so hope this is relevant.`
+- `saw you in a few conversations around LinkedIn outreach, so hope this is relevant.`
+- `saw you in a few conversations about LinkedIn outreach, so may be off, but this seemed relevant.`
+- `may be off, but if outbound is anywhere near your lane, this might be useful.`
+- `figured this might matter if you're testing outbound by market.`
 
 ### Angle drafting & finalizer
 
@@ -1014,8 +1093,12 @@ defensive wording like `legit`, `real operation`, `not a side project`, or
    easy to delete.
 
 Do not use PS to explain why the pitch is credible, defend the message,
-summarize the strategy, add a second offer, or patch a weak body. If the
-PS sounds like internal reasoning, delete it.
+summarize the strategy, add a second offer, narrate the source thread, or patch
+a weak body. If the PS sounds like internal reasoning, delete it. Source
+disclaimers such as `p.s. if the source thread was just casual reading, ignore
+me` are BLOCKED; if the source is too weak to stand in the opener/body, omit it.
+A relevance-risk PS is allowed when it names uncertainty without narrating the
+source: `p.s. if this is nowhere near your outbound workflow, ignore me.`
 
 ### Raw proof translation test (HARD INVARIANT)
 
@@ -1154,8 +1237,9 @@ Before `confirmed`, run the selected winner against these gates:
 - **Non-assumption:** the opener does not assert what the buyer wants,
   feels, needs, or is trying to do unless the exact fact is grounded in
   the lead sample. If desire is inferred, use tentative framing like
-  `not sure if this is relevant, but...`, `thought this might be
-relevant if...`, or `if you've ever wanted...`.
+  `hope this is relevant if...`, `saw you might be interested in...`,
+  `saw you in a few conversations around...`, `figured this might matter if...`,
+  or `if you've ever wanted...`.
 - **Buyer-first opener:** after the greeting, the first substantive line
   should usually enter the buyer's world: a real signal, current-state
   pain, buyer-owned priority, or useful artifact. Sender-origin can come
@@ -1449,13 +1533,17 @@ infrastructure signal`, or `rails can match` unless that exact buyer
   urgency unless `lead-sample.json` states that exact fact. Phrases such
   as `clearly on your mind`, `obviously focused on`, `already thinking
 about`, or `clearly relevant` are BLOCKED. Source-y phrases such as
-  `saw you on...`, `saw you around...`, and `saw you engaging with...`
+  `saw you on...`, bare `saw you around...`, and `saw you engaging with...`
   are also blocked unless the archived winner explicitly depends on that
   self-aware signal style. Translate the signal into low-certainty buyer
-  context instead: `you might not remember the thread, but I found you
-through a [topic] discussion and your [observable role/company context]
-looked close to [problem]`, `this may be too specific, but if [topic] is
-part of what you're testing...`, or a similarly natural line.
+  context instead: `hope this is relevant if [topic] is part of the plan`,
+  `saw you might be interested in [topic], so hope this is relevant`, `saw you
+  in a few conversations around [topic], so hope this is relevant`, `found you
+  in a few conversations about [topic], so may be off, but this seemed
+  relevant`, `figured this might matter if [workflow] is live at [company]`, or a similarly natural
+  line. Longer source-recap forms such as `you might not remember the thread,
+  but I found you through a [topic] discussion...` are BLOCKED; they narrate
+  the scrape path instead of creating buyer relevance.
 - **Engagement reference is opt-in, not the default opener:** do not
   default to `{{first_name}}, saw you {{engagement_context}} on
 {{post_context}}`, `saw you reacted to...`, or equivalent retrieval-log
@@ -1505,6 +1593,11 @@ PO from your inbox?` beats `worth 15 min to compare notes?` because the
   commitment-lowering aside, concrete preview aside, proof-as-wink, or
   tight customer/result proof. If it explains the strategy, defends the
   pitch, or patches weak credibility, it is BLOCKED.
+  PS source disclaimers are also BLOCKED: do not write `if the source thread
+  was just casual reading, ignore me`, `only reaching out where the role and
+  topic looked close`, or similar sourcing-defense copy.
+  Relevance-risk opt-outs are allowed when they do not defend the source:
+  `p.s. if this is nowhere near your outbound workflow, ignore me.`
 - **YC / backing PS:** a PS that only says `we're YC`, `we're YC W26`,
   `backed by YC`, or similar is BLOCKED as badge-flashing. If YC/backing
   is used, the same sentence must either tie to the buyer segment/outcome
@@ -1565,12 +1658,18 @@ LinkedIn UI already shows the recipient who sent the message (sender
 name, photo, headline), so the body should NEVER
 include `"X here"`, `"I'm Y"`, `"{{sender_name}}, {{title}} at
 {{company}}"`, or any self-identification phrase — those are
-Filter-8 violations. NEVER references the recipient yet either (no
-`{{first_name}} — saw you...`, no `Your X is...`). Open with what
-matters to the buyer or the operator-reality that led to it. Acceptable
-openers:
+Filter-8 violations. Recipient context may lead only when it is a
+permissioned relevance bridge or self-aware engagement opener, not a resume
+recap, compliment, source citation, or `Your X is...` line. Open with what
+matters to the buyer, why this might be relevant, or the operator-reality that
+led to it. Acceptable openers:
 
 - `Hey {{first_name}}, [one plain sentence about what we built].`
+- `Hey {{first_name}}, hope this is relevant if [buyer context] is still on your plate.`
+- `Hey {{first_name}}, saw you might be interested in [topic], so hope this is relevant.`
+- `Hey {{first_name}}, saw you in a few conversations around [topic], so hope this is relevant.`
+- `Hey {{first_name}}, saw you raise your hand for [topic], so figured this was (hopefully) worth sending.`
+- `Hey {{first_name}}, saw you raise your hand for [topic] (creepy to reach out based on that, i know) - but this felt too on the nose to ignore.`
 - `Hey {{first_name}}, pre-[product], we [did the operator-reality
 thing] for [X] years; [one-line consequence].`
 - `Hey {{first_name}}, building a thing for [segment] I think you'd
@@ -1584,6 +1683,9 @@ Unacceptable Block-1 openers (Filter-8 violations):
   sent the message)
 - `Hey {{first_name}}, I'm {{sender_name}}, co-founder at [company].`
 - `{{sender_name}}, [title] at [company]. We do [X].`
+- `Hey {{first_name}}, caught your profile and thought...`
+- `Hey {{first_name}}, your GTM and international growth work at [Company A]
+  and [Company B] looked close to what [Product] is built for.`
 
 **Default Block 2 — Mechanism.** ~1 sentence. What the product actually does
 in plain words. NOT a feature list. NOT a stack dump. NOT a
@@ -1804,10 +1906,14 @@ Rules:
 - if `lead-sample.json` carries **any** per-lead signal for this lead — a recent post, a recent hire, a visible tool in the headline, a topic engagement, a public initiative — the **message must reference it specifically**. Category-level copy is rejected.
 - default placement is **Block 3**, not Block 1. Keep Block 1 substance-first unless the archived motion clearly earns a signal-led opener without falling into source-citation / talk-at phrasing.
 - acceptable signal use by default:
-  - `"Not sure if this is relevant, but if [topic] is part of what you're testing, this may be useful."`
-  - `"Thought of {{company}} because [observable signal] touches a similar problem."`
-  - `"This may be too specific, but the [topic] angle felt close enough to send."`
-  - `"You might not remember the thread, but I found you through a [topic] discussion and your [observable role/company context] looked close to [problem]."`
+  - `"Hope this is relevant if [topic] is part of the plan."`
+  - `"Saw you might be interested in [topic], so hope this is relevant."`
+  - `"Saw you in a few conversations around [topic], so hope this is relevant."`
+  - `"Saw you in a few conversations about [topic], so may be off, but this seemed relevant."`
+  - `"Thought of {{company}} because [observable signal] points at [problem]."`
+  - `"Figured this might matter if [workflow] is live at {{company}}."`
+  - `"Saw you raise your hand for [topic], so figured this was (hopefully) worth sending."`
+  - `"Saw you raise your hand for [topic] (creepy to reach out based on that, i know) - but this felt too on the nose to ignore."`
 - blocked signal use:
   - `"AI-GTM stack is clearly on your mind."`
   - `"You're clearly focused on [area]."`
@@ -1816,13 +1922,20 @@ Rules:
   - `"Saw you on [topic]."`
   - `"Saw you around [topic]."`
   - `"Saw you engaging with [topic]."`
-- signal-led opener shape is a **special case**, not the default. Use it only when the archived motion truly depends on it and the line can stay natural. Follow Superpower's `"saw you were active around some [topic] stuff recently and figured this might actually be relevant"` shape only when it reads like a real human note rather than a retrieval flex.
+- signal-led opener shape is a **special case**, not the default. Use it only when the archived motion truly depends on it and the line can stay natural. For LinkedIn-post-sourced campaigns, prefer `"saw you in a few conversations around [topic], so hope this is relevant"` when referencing the source makes the outreach feel less random. Avoid activity-log phrasing such as `"you commented on..."`, `"you reacted to..."`, or `"your LinkedIn activity..."` unless the approved motion is the deliberately self-aware raise-hand line.
 - tokenized engagement-source opener shape is BLOCKED by default:
   `{{first_name}}, saw you {{engagement_context}} on {{post_context}}` reads
   like surveillance unless the filled line is explicitly self-aware and
-  low-certainty. Prefer `you might not remember the thread, but I found you
-through a [topic] discussion and your [observable role/company context] looked
-close to [problem]` or omit the engagement reference entirely.
+  low-certainty. Prefer a concise bridge such as `hope this is relevant if
+[topic] is part of the plan`, `saw you might be interested in [topic], so hope
+this is relevant`, `saw you in a few conversations around [topic], so hope this
+is relevant`, `saw you in a few conversations about [topic], so may be off,
+but this seemed relevant`, or one of the self-aware raise-hand shapes when the source is the
+actual reason for the note: `saw you raise your hand for [topic], so figured
+this was (hopefully) worth sending` or `saw you raise your hand for [topic]
+(creepy to reach out based on that, i know) - but this felt too on the nose to
+ignore`. Do not use the longer `you might not remember the thread...` shape;
+if the concise source bridge still feels awkward, omit the engagement reference.
 - do not describe the sender/client in third person inside the outbound message.
   `p.s. Saju's angle is...`, `Christian's angle is...`, `[sender]'s approach
 is...`, and similar lines are internal notes leaking into prospect copy. If the
@@ -1879,9 +1992,12 @@ A PS can do four jobs:
    must name what the customers used the product/service for, not just that
    they exist.
 
-A PS must not explain strategy, defend the pitch, add a second unrelated
-offer, or say the quiet part out loud. Lines like `this is not just a
-platform idea` are blocked because they sound like internal rationale.
+A PS must not explain strategy, defend the pitch, narrate the source thread,
+add a second unrelated offer, or say the quiet part out loud. Lines like `this
+is not just a platform idea` and `if the source thread was just casual reading,
+ignore me` are blocked because they sound like internal rationale. A plain
+relevance-risk opt-out such as `if this is nowhere near your outbound workflow,
+ignore me` can stay when it lowers pressure without explaining the scrape.
 
 The reader does not know who the sender's colleagues are. Dropping a bare first name with no anchor reads like a resume dump that was cut in half.