@sellable/mcp 0.1.212 → 0.1.214

package/skills/create-campaign-v2/references/gold-standard-message-examples.md

@@ -1,149 +1,258 @@
 # Gold-Standard Message Examples
 
-These are the archive winners. Treat them as the **quality bar and motion
-reference**, not a paste source. Your job is to write a new message that could
-plausibly belong in this archive for the motion you're validating — not to
-recolor an existing one.
+This is the canonical example asset for `generate-messages` and Sellable
+campaign message drafting.
+
+Use this file as the quality bar, motion reference, and runtime example set.
+Do not load a separate runtime-message-pack for message drafting. Primary
+runtime examples are safe default inspiration. Conditional examples are only for
+matching motions.
+
+## Example Governance
+
+- Primary runtime examples are the first line-level inspiration set.
+- Conditional examples are only for matching campaign motions.
+- CTA shapes are patterns, not full examples.
+- Word-for-word preservation only applies when the archived winner is the same
+  company as the brief, such as Superposition drafting for Superposition.
+- In every other case, match the quality bar and motion skeleton, but write fresh
+  sentences from the verified brief and campaign-table rows.
+- Do not use examples marked acceptance-only, removed, or bad as runtime
+  inspiration.
+- If any example conflicts with `sellable-cleanup-rules.md` or `ai-tells.md`,
+  the cleanup rules win.
+- Before choosing any example, name the strongest true thing we can say to this
+  buyer: the safest compelling mechanism, proof, asset, diagnostic, offer, or
+  buyer outcome available from the brief and sample.
+- Extract the job each gold line does before copying any shape: buyer situation,
+  reply reason, sender relevance, offer clarity, mechanism clarity, proof role,
+  CTA job, and surface traits not to copy blindly.
+
+## Primary Runtime Examples
+
+Use these as the safe everyday runtime inspiration set.
+
+### Example 1: sellable.dev A/B Meta Demo
+
+Use when the brief supports:
+
+- a clear buyer signal
+- a self-aware source bridge
+- a product whose own workflow can be shown in the CTA
+- two genuinely useful next-step options
 
-When to preserve word-for-word:
+```text
+hey [name],
 
-- the archived winner is the **same company** you're drafting for (e.g.,
-  Superposition drafting for Superposition). Keep casing, spacing, CTA shape,
-  and proof ordering; swap only documented tokens.
+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.
 
-Every other case: match the quality bar, match the motion's skeleton (opener
-rhythm, proof placement, CTA tone), but write the sentences fresh from the
-validated brief + sample.
+i'm building sellable, the only gtm platform that runs natively on claude code.
 
-Each example ends with a **Proof ranks used** line so retrieval can line up
-with the proof inventory in `gold-standard-message-patterns.md`.
+we're looking for design partners - and [PERSONALIZED REASON - their team size, role, or why they're a perfect fit].
 
-Do not put active validation fixtures in this file as exact company-specific
-examples. The library should teach transferable winning motions, not leak the
-fixture answer into Phase 84.
+two options:
 
-## Example 1: Revvix / Spektion Event-Led Security
+a) 15-min call - i'll show you how you could book more meetings with [THEIR ICP - who they want to reach], and if you like it we launch a pilot right there
 
-Use when the brief has:
+b) i send you the video of me using sellable to write and send this exact message to you (yes, it's that meta)
 
-- a real security event
-- booth or logistics detail
-- a low-pressure coffee / demo ask
+p.s. yes, this message was entirely written and sent via claude code
+```
+
+Why it works:
 
-Template shape:
+- the signal is real and the self-aware parenthetical lowers source risk
+- the product line is short and bold
+- the A/B CTA offers either a working session or a proof asset
+- the AI-native tokens are intent-shaped, not generic mail-merge slots
+
+**Proof ranks used:** rank 1 (mechanism - GTM platform running natively on
+Claude Code), rank 4 (speed-to-value - launch a pilot on the call).
+
+### Example 2: Hey Digital Scenario + Case-Study Asset
+
+Use when the brief supports:
+
+- a company moment the buyer already understands
+- one strong peer case study
+- an asset CTA that is useful without a meeting
 
 ```text
-Subject: RSAC next week
+Hey Sarah,
 
-Hey {{first_name}},
+Saw Acme just closed their Series B... usually that's when the board starts asking about paid channels.
 
-So I noticed you'll be at RSAC and wanted to reach out before the week gets crazy.
+We helped PostHog through that exact moment - they had a huge free user base but needed to figure out if paid could actually drive cloud conversions without burning budget. Ended up increasing cloud conversions 18.5%.
 
-Most {{team_type}} we chat with are sending thousands of "critical" CVEs to IT, and it's getting harder to prioritize the ones that matter most.
+The thing that made it work was having a clear system from day one... not just launching ads and hoping.
 
-We show what's actually exploitable on your endpoints based on runtime activity, including AI tools that scanners might miss.
+two options:
 
-We'll be at the Spektion booth ESE #7 all week, happy to grab a coffee or just say hi.
+a) 15-min call - I walk through how PostHog set it up and what would apply to Acme
 
-Let me know if this sounds interesting.
+b) I send you our B2B Ads Arsenal - ad templates, playbooks, and case studies from 200+ SaaS companies so you can dig in yourself
 ```
 
 Why it works:
 
-- concrete, time-bound trigger first
-- one pain statement
-- one mechanism
-- one low-pressure event CTA
-- no extra proof laundry list
+- starts from a business moment instead of a generic pain
+- one case study does the proof work
+- the second CTA is valuable even if the buyer is not ready for a call
 
-**Proof ranks used:** rank 1 (mechanism — "actually exploitable on endpoints based on runtime activity"). Event hook carries relevance; proof is intentionally light.
+**Proof ranks used:** rank 3 (concrete outcome - 18.5% cloud conversion lift),
+rank 2 (named social proof - PostHog), rank 4 (asset-led next step).
 
-If the brief has an event motion but the lead sample does not validate attendee
-proof, do not fake the event hook. Borrow the brevity and single-pain structure
-instead of the explicit event claim.
+### Example 3: Clover Report Offer
 
-Preferred non-attendee variant:
+Use when the brief supports:
+
+- work already done for the buyer
+- a concrete report, thread set, or analysis artifact
+- permission-to-send CTA
 
 ```text
-Subject: RSAC next week
+hey {{firstName}},
+
+we tracked every reddit discussion around {{category/keyword}} and found {{X}} conversations and {{Y}} responses where people are actively comparing tools or asking for recommendations.
+
+{{companyName}} isn't showing up in any of them yet so we put the threads into a short report for you.
+
+thought it could help to see where you can convert more customers from the few million viewers already searching for that on reddit.
+
+can I send it over?
+```
 
+Why it works:
+
+- leads with useful work already done
+- makes the missed opportunity concrete
+- asks only for permission to send the artifact
+
+**Proof ranks used:** rank 4 (deployment / speed-to-value - report already
+prepared), rank 3 (concrete scale - conversations, responses, viewers).
+
+### Example 4: Persona Proof Framing
+
+Use when the brief supports:
+
+- founder-led or executive-led content
+- strong proof that needs translation
+- a useful A/B CTA
+- careful token discipline
+
+```text
+hey {{first_name}},
+
+not sure if this is relevant but saw you in a few conversations around {{founder_led_topic}} and thought i'd send a note.
+
+for context, {{role_group}} i ghostwrite for generated over 350 million impressions in the past 12 months.
+
+but what actually matters is that 85%+ of the engagement is ICP aligned. if there isn't ICP alignment, none of the virality or engagement matters.
+
+two options:
+
+a) in a 15 min call, i can show you a content roadmap and what i'd do for {{company}}
+
+b) i can share a page showing how one founder hit 30 million impressions in a year and another went from 0 to 60k followers in 12 months
+```
+
+Required token lesson from this motion:
+
+```text
+BAD: founders in the generative ai space i ghostwrite for generated over 350 million impressions
+BETTER: founders in tech i ghostwrite for generated over 350 million impressions
+```
+
+Why it works:
+
+- the proof is not just a big number; it explains why the number matters
+- the token lesson prevents awkward over-specific fills
+- the CTA offers either a working session or a proof page
+
+**Proof ranks used:** rank 3 (350M impressions, 85%+ ICP-aligned engagement),
+rank 4 (roadmap / proof page next step).
+
+### Example 5: Superpower Signal-Led Benefits
+
+Use when the brief supports:
+
+- benefits, rewards, preventive health, or healthcare buyers
+- a weak engagement signal that must stay low-certainty
+- simple mechanism language in a complex domain
+
+```text
 Hey {{first_name}},
 
-RSAC is next week so reaching out before things get hectic.
+saw you in a few conversations around {{topic}}, so hope this is relevant.
 
-Most {{team_type}} we chat with are sending thousands of "critical" CVEs to IT, and it's getting harder to prioritize the ones that matter most.
+if preventive health is anywhere near the benefits plan at {{company}}, Superpower helps the team spot risk earlier.
 
-We show what's actually exploitable on your endpoints based on runtime activity, including AI tools that scanners might miss.
+it screens for 1,000+ conditions from a single blood draw and surfaces risks before they become claims.
 
-Happy to grab a coffee at the Spektion booth or send a short overview first.
+basically your team gets to see what's coming instead of only reacting to it.
+
+should i send over the short version?
 ```
 
-## Example 2: Stack-Replacement Operator Diagnostic
+Why it works:
+
+- the topic signal does not imply buyer intent
+- the product line is plain-English and buyer-readable
+- the ask is tiny and specific
 
-Use when the brief has:
+**Proof ranks used:** rank 1 (mechanism - 1,000+ conditions from one blood
+draw), rank 3 (risk before claims).
 
-- HubSpot / Salesforce / form-routing workflow pain
-- inbound or paid traffic leakage
-- a lightweight overlay / no-migration promise
-- credible social proof, backing, founder-proof, or a concrete diagnostic that
-  is strong enough to make the buyer care
+## Conditional Examples
 
-Preferred expanded InMail shape:
+Use these only when the campaign motion matches.
+
+### Example 6: Revvix / Spektion Event-Led Security
+
+Use when the brief has:
+
+- a real security event
+- booth or logistics detail
+- a low-pressure coffee or demo ask
 
 ```text
-Curious how you're handling the current stack between HubSpot/Salesforce, form routing, scheduling, and follow-up today. Most teams end up duct-taping 3-4 tools together and good leads die somewhere in that handoff.
+Subject: RSAC next week
+
+Hey {{first_name}},
 
-[Product] replaces that whole chain with one lightweight AI layer. Capture, qualify, route, and book without asking the team to rip out the CRM.
+So I noticed you'll be at RSAC and wanted to reach out before the week gets crazy.
+
+Most {{team_type}} we chat with are sending thousands of "critical" CVEs to IT, and it's getting harder to prioritize the ones that matter most.
+
+We show what's actually exploitable on your endpoints based on runtime activity, including AI tools that scanners might miss.
+
+We'll be at the Spektion booth ESE #7 all week, happy to grab a coffee or just say hi.
 
-[Use the strongest true thing available from the brief here: a named customer
-result, a concrete diagnostic, a founder/builder credibility point, a proof
-asset, or a specific offer. Do not add a PS just because the template has one.]
+Let me know if this sounds interesting.
 ```
 
 Why it works:
 
-- names the exact workflow/tool
-- names the current stack, not just the abstract category
-- says what is wrong with the stack in buyer-language terms
-- identifies the loss clearly
-- positions the product as a lightweight fix
-- uses the strongest true proof or offer available, wherever it belongs
-- sounds like one operator typed it, not like a framework assembled it
-
-**Proof ranks used:** rank 1 (mechanism — "lightweight overlay / AI layer
-replacing the stack") in body, then the strongest safe proof available from the
-brief. Do not reserve proof for a PS by default. If the strongest proof is a
-customer result, it can sit in the body. If the strongest asset is a teardown,
-audit, report, video, or diagnostic, it should usually become the CTA. If the
-strongest credibility is founder/backing/prior-company proof, a short PS can
-work, but only when it makes the message more believable instead of more
-templated.
-
-**This is also the default proof-led specialist fallback exemplar.** When the
-brief has no event, no active signal, and no hiring hook, default to this
-decision process even if the category isn't stack-replacement: observed
-current-state → what breaks → product-name-first mechanism → strongest true
-proof / offer / asset. The point is not to fill a shape; it is to surface the
-best reason a real buyer should reply.
-
-For dry mode, use only the safe proof available in `brief.md`. Preserve the
-logic even when the exact proof number is unavailable. Never invent a metric to
-make the shape work.
-
-## Example 3: Superposition Exact Job-Post Template
+- concrete, time-bound trigger first
+- one pain statement
+- one mechanism
+- one low-pressure event CTA
+
+**Proof ranks used:** rank 1 (mechanism - exploitable endpoints based on runtime
+activity). Event hook carries relevance.
+
+### Example 7: Superposition Exact Job-Post Template
 
 Use when the brief has:
 
-- founder / CEO buyer
+- founder or CEO buyer
 - active hiring signal
 - exact proof stack already validated
 
-Template shape:
-
 ```text
 Hey {{firstName}},
 
-Saw you posted for {{a role}} — I'm sure every recruiter on LinkedIn is already in your DMs.
+Saw you posted for {{a role}} - I'm sure every recruiter on LinkedIn is already in your DMs.
 
 But..
 
@@ -162,7 +271,7 @@ The whole thing is outcome-based, so you only pay when someone actually starts.
 
 Two quick options:
 
-a) 15-min call — find the uncommonly specific {{role}} who's the exact right fit for your team
+a) 15-min call - find the uncommonly specific {{role}} who's the exact right fit for your team
 
 b) see why Vince at Plastic Labs calls Superposition "a no-brainer" - we scanned 43,802 candidates to find 15 that matched traits no resume would show
 
@@ -175,17 +284,16 @@ Why it works:
 - proof compounds line by line
 - the CTA is part of the mechanism, not a generic ask
 - freestyling makes it worse
-- this is a good example of proof as stacked credibility, not just product
-  explanation
 
-**Proof ranks used:** rank 5 (founder proof — "first engineering hire at Brex"), rank 2 (named social proof — Newton, Vitable, Plastic Labs, Vince quote), rank 3 (concrete outcome — "43,802 candidates to find 15"). This is proof _stacking_, only valid when every line is verifiable.
+**Proof ranks used:** rank 5 (founder proof - first engineering hire at Brex),
+rank 2 (named social proof - Newton, Vitable, Plastic Labs, Vince quote), rank 3
+(concrete outcome - 43,802 candidates to find 15).
 
-**Word-for-word preservation applies here only when the brief is Superposition
-itself.** For other job-post motions, match the rhythm (acknowledge the
-recruiter DMs → founder credibility → specific client proof → outcome-based
-CTA) but write fresh sentences from the brief's actual proof.
+Word-for-word preservation applies only when the brief is Superposition itself.
+For other job-post motions, match the rhythm and write fresh sentences from the
+brief's actual proof.
 
-## Example 4: Galley Event / Pass / Demo
+### Example 8: Galley Event / Pass / Demo
 
 Use when the brief has:
 
@@ -194,201 +302,162 @@ Use when the brief has:
 - concrete booth demo
 - tactile operational pain
 
-Template shape:
-
 ```text
 Subject: catersource booth 1517
 
 Hey {{first_name}},
 
-not sure if catersource is on your radar next week, but we're at a booth and I've got some free attendance passes if you want one (code: PARTNER2026).
+not sure if catersource is on your radar next week, but we're at booth 1517 and I have a few free attendance passes if you want one (code: PARTNER2026).
+
+We just built an AI that reads messy BEOs and turns them into production-ready event plans in minutes.
 
-Wanted to reach out though as we just built an AI that reads the messiest BEOs and turns them into production-ready plans in minutes. recipes, purchasing, prep, nutrition, all mapped automatically.
+One BEO becomes:
 
-The part where your team spends hours rebuilding every event order by hand, that's what this replaces.. And a bit more
+- recipes your kitchen can follow
+- purchasing lists tied to portions
+- prep, station, and nutrition notes
 
-We're doing live demos at the booth. With the free pass you can join the conference and bring a BEO, we'll run it through right there.
+We're doing live demos at the booth. Bring a BEO and we'll run it through right there.
 
-So if you're around LA march 3-5, would love to have you stop by. first-look slots are filling up though so lmk if you want me to hold one.
+If you're around LA march 3-5, want me to hold you a first-look slot?
 ```
 
 Why it works:
 
-- pass + booth + BEO are concrete objects
-- tactile pain beats abstract ops language
-- casual tone matters
+- pass, booth, and BEO are concrete objects
+- the bullet stack turns one operational input into three short outputs, which is easier to scan on mobile than a dense feature paragraph
+- live demo with the buyer's real input makes the CTA useful
+
+Bullet-stack rule from this example:
+
+- use exactly three bullets when one input becomes multiple concrete outputs
+- keep each bullet short and parallel: object + useful outcome
+- do not use bullets for vague benefits, feature laundry lists, or proof that belongs in narrative
 
-**Proof ranks used:** rank 1 (mechanism — "AI that reads the messiest BEOs and turns them into production-ready plans in minutes"), rank 4 (deployment / speed — "in minutes" + "we'll run it through right there"). No social proof; the concrete asset (pass + booth + BEO walk-through) carries the weight.
+**Proof ranks used:** rank 1 (mechanism - reads messy BEOs and turns them into
+production-ready plans), rank 4 (speed-to-value - in minutes and live booth run).
 
-## Example 5: Superpower Signal-Led Benefits
+### Example 9: Galley Signal-Led Honest Operator
 
 Use when the brief has:
 
-- signal-led topic engagement
-- benefits / rewards / wellness buyers
-- proof-heavy preventive-health positioning
+- a real content or topic-engagement signal
+- a founder/operator sender voice
+- a product that can be explained simply
+- a source bridge that should stay low-certainty and specific
 
-Template shape:
+Tokenized template:
 
 ```text
-hey {{first name}},
+Hey {{first_name}},
+
+[LOW_CERTAINTY_SOURCE_BRIDGE - write ONE sentence that names the topic source without implying intent. DO: "Found you in a thread about food cost margins, so may be off, but this seemed relevant." DO: if the source is too weak, use "May be off, but this seemed relevant if [buyer workflow] is on your plate." DON'T: say "you reacted to", "saw you engaging with", "your activity", or "found you through". FALLBACK: omit this line.]
 
-saw you were active around some {{topic}} stuff recently and figured this might actually be relevant
+[BUYER_PAIN_LINE - write ONE concrete sentence about the buyer workflow getting messy. DO: name the connected objects that drift apart, like recipes, portions, and vendor prices. DON'T: use generic "teams struggle with operations" language. FALLBACK: use the campaign's clearest buyer pain from the brief.]
 
-any chance you're exploring early detection or preventive health programs at {{company}}?
+{{product_name}} is a {{plain_product_category}} for {{buyer_team_type}}.
 
-we screen for 1,000+ conditions from a single blood draw and surface risks before they ever become claims.
+[MECHANISM_LINE - write ONE sentence showing what the product keeps connected. DO: name 2-4 operational objects and the team handoff they support. DON'T: list features without the buyer-side reason. FALLBACK: omit if the product line already explains the mechanism.]
 
-basically your team gets to see what's coming instead of just reacting to it
+Open to a quick call on [CONCRETE_CTA_TOPIC - write a short buyer-readable topic for the call, like "recipe costing and margin visibility". DON'T: use "compare notes", "quick chat", or "worth a look" by itself.]?
 
-can I send over some more info?
+P.S. [PROOF_ASIDE - write ONE short proof line only if verified. DO: use one compact social-proof or rating line. DON'T: invent customer counts, ratings, revenue, or named customers. FALLBACK: omit the P.S.]
 ```
 
-Alternative proof-led variant:
+Rendered example:
 
 ```text
-hey {{first name}},
+Hey Mohamed,
 
-saw you were active in some {{topic}} conversations recently and wanted to run something by you
+Found you in a thread about food cost margins, so may be off, but this seemed relevant.
 
-most annual physicals test 15 biomarkers max.
+Bulk costing gets messy when recipes, portions, and vendor prices live apart.
 
-there's over 100 that actually matter and the gap between those two numbers is where the expensive claims tend to sit
+Galley is a Culinary Resource Planning platform for foodservice teams.
 
-teams like Lyft and Notion are already exploring this. one draw, 1,000+ conditions, $199 a person.
+It keeps recipes, ingredient costs, and menu margins connected - where purchasing and production can work from the same numbers.
 
-if your claims costs have been going up and you're not sure where it's coming from... that gap may be a good place to start looking
+Open to a quick call on recipe costing and margin visibility?
 
-can I send over some more info?
+P.S. 2,400+ kitchens already use Galley - with a 4.9 average rating :)
 ```
 
 Why it works:
 
-- signal comes first
-- all lowercase matters
-- the CTA stays tiny
-- this should not get polished into generic benefits copy
-- the proof sentence does real work; it is not optional filler
+- the source bridge is specific, low-certainty, and not source-defensive
+- the buyer pain is concrete before the product line
+- the product category is clear on first read
+- the mechanism connects the operational objects without a feature dump
+- the CTA names the useful conversation instead of asking for a generic call
+- the P.S. uses proof as a short final aside
 
-**Proof ranks used:** rank 1 (mechanism — "1,000+ conditions from a single blood draw"), rank 3 (concrete outcome — "15 biomarkers vs 100 that matter" + "$199 a person"), rank 2 (named social proof — Lyft, Notion). Lowercase tone is load-bearing; polishing it kills the signal-led voice.
+**Proof ranks used:** rank 1 (mechanism - recipes, ingredient costs, menu
+margins, purchasing, and production connected), rank 2 (social proof - 2,400+
+kitchens and 4.9 average rating).
 
-## Example 6: Signal-Led Honest Operator
+## Useful CTA Shapes
 
-Use when the brief has:
+Use these as CTA patterns, not as complete messages.
 
-- a real content or topic-engagement signal
-- a founder/operator sender voice
-- a product that can be explained simply in one or two lines
-- a motion where "two options" feels natural
+### Sellable A/B CTA Shape
 
-Template shape:
+Use when both choices are genuinely useful and supported.
 
 ```text
-hey {{first_name}},
-
-reaching out because it looked like you were active around some {{signal_topic}} recently.
-
-figured this might actually be relevant.
-
-[product] does [simple one-line mechanism].
-
 two options:
 
-a) [useful working-session / direct conversation option]
-
-b) [short overview / lightweight alternate only if the brief supports it]
+a) 15-min call - i'll show you how {{team_or_company}} could [specific buyer outcome] with [their ICP / workflow / channel]
 
-p.s. [short proof line]
+b) i send you [specific proof asset, teardown, report, or demo artifact] so you can judge it yourself
 ```
 
-Why it works:
-
-- the signal is first and easy to understand
-- the "figured this might actually be relevant" line feels honest without
-  over-explaining
-- the product is framed simply
-- "two options" makes the CTA easy to scan
-- the proof stays short and sits in the `PS`
-
-Important constraint:
-
-- borrow the honesty and option structure from `sellable.dev`, but do not copy
-  the exact Claude-terminal gimmick unless the brief explicitly supports it
-  and the product can really carry that move
-
-**Proof ranks used:** rank 1 (mechanism) in the one-line product sentence, rank 2 or 5 (social proof or founder/backing) in the PS. "Two options" is the CTA shape; proof stays small and honest.
-
-## Example 7: Useful CTA Shapes
+### Low-Commitment Binary CTA
 
-Use when the brief supports a useful next step but not a hard meeting ask.
-
-From Gelee:
+Use when the buyer might prefer an artifact before a call.
 
 ```text
 is this worth a look or should i send a short overview first?
 ```
 
-From Galley:
+### Concrete Preview CTA
+
+Use when the product can show the buyer their own input or workflow.
 
 ```text
-easiest way to see if it's worth a look is to try it with one of your actual menus. happy to set that up or I can send a 2-min video instead.
+open to seeing what one of your actual menus would look like in Galley?
 ```
 
-Use these patterns to avoid generic asks like:
-
-- worth a conversation?
-- open to a call?
-- worth a look?
-
-Prefer a binary or useful CTA when the brief supports it.
-
-CTA decision rule:
+CTA decision rules:
 
 - generate single-ask and A/B options before deciding
 - use A/B only when both choices are genuinely useful and supported
-- for unfamiliar categories, the CTA should name the buyer-specific preview in
-  one short phrase, not list every screen or workflow
-- do not use abstract artifact words like "setup link", "overview", or
-  "walkthrough" unless the message has already made what the buyer will see
-  concrete
-- for new categories, make the CTA object the buyer-specific preview or
-  outcome, not the artifact itself
-
-PS decision rule:
-
-- PS is optional and rare
-- use it only as a natural final aside that lowers commitment, makes a
-  new-category preview easier to picture, verifies the core claim with a wink,
-  or carries one short customer/result proof
-- do not use PS to explain why the pitch is credible, add a second unrelated
-  offer, or patch weak body copy
-
-Proof decision rule:
-
-- metrics, interaction counts, usage counts, time-window claims, and revenue
-  math must pass the "so what?" test
-- if the buyer can immediately understand why the number is impressive and
-  relevant, it can work
-- if the number only proves "this is live" or "we are using it," translate it,
-  test a different placement, or keep it internal
+- translate `compare notes` into the concrete topic of the call
+- avoid generic asks like `open to a call?`, `worth a look?`, and `quick chat?`
+- for unfamiliar categories, name the buyer-specific preview or outcome
+
+## Do Not Use As Runtime Inspiration
+
+- The removed generic Galley rotation/menu-plan example. It is weaker than the
+  concrete Mohamed/Galley and event examples.
+- Amplify Security acceptance fixtures.
+- Gelee as a full example. Keep only its useful low-commitment CTA shape.
+- westpark villas.
+- raw old-client archive examples not listed in this file.
+- bad examples unless they are explicitly labeled `BAD` and paired with a better
+  rewrite.
 
 ## Hard Rules From The Examples
 
 - keep the opener to one observation or one pain, not both stacked together
-- keep the body to 3 short paragraphs max
+- keep the body to three short paragraphs unless the exact validated motion needs
+  more
 - keep proof to one tight sentence unless the canonical template clearly needs
-  more (Superposition is the only archive winner that stacks proof)
-- when the brief supports stronger proof, choose one compelling proof element
-  rather than a bland generic credibility sentence
+  proof stacking
+- choose one compelling proof element rather than a bland credibility sentence
 - avoid "X means you're likely..." framing; it reads synthesized
-- avoid "at your stage" and "in a setup like yours"; they sound inferred rather
-  than observed
-- prefer product-name-first mechanism lines over "We built..." when both say
-  the same thing
-- do not use em dashes unless the chosen Primary Example already uses one
-- samples in one set should feel like siblings, not three rhetorical styles
-- **word-for-word preservation only when the archived winner is the same
-  company as the brief.** For every other case, match the quality bar and
-  motion shape without recoloring the exemplar's wording
-- use the full archive for retrieval, but choose one primary example and at
-  most one narrow secondary influence when drafting the final message
+- avoid "at your stage" and "in a setup like yours"; they sound inferred
+- prefer product-name-first mechanism lines when that is clearer than "We built"
+- do not use em dashes unless the chosen primary example already uses one
+- samples in one set should feel like siblings, not three unrelated styles
+- choose one primary example and at most one narrow secondary influence when
+  drafting the final message