@sellable/mcp 0.1.258 → 0.1.260

package/skills/create-post/references/hook-research-playbook.md

@@ -1,6 +1,19 @@
-# Hook Research Playbook
+# Hook Research Playbook V2
 
-Hook research must use current Sellable engagement data before drafting unless the user explicitly asks for `unsaved_preview`. The goal is not only to find hooks. The goal is to find what the market is currently rewarding, what the audience implicitly believes/wants/resents/fears, which controversial angle the user can credibly test, and what premise would deliver real reader value.
+Hook research must use current Sellable engagement data before drafting unless
+the user explicitly asks for `unsaved_preview`. The goal is not only to find
+hooks. The goal is to find the weighted best posts, understand why they made
+readers click "see more," decompose each post into a reusable narrative and
+positioning template, and then adapt those templates to the user's real story
+without copying source wording.
+
+V2 research has four outputs:
+
+1. weighted source winners: the best recent posts to learn from
+2. hook autopsies: exact preview measurements, open loops, and tension created
+3. viral-post outlines: the narrative structure of each source post
+4. post positioning breakdown templates: line-level positioning and narrative
+   technique maps that can be adapted into the user's draft
 
 ## Search Inputs
 
@@ -28,13 +41,16 @@ Worker owns:
 - tracked-person post fetches
 - full-text matching by URL/activity ID
 - duplicate removal
-- follower-band and reach-normalized signal scoring
 - lead-magnet, giveaway, engagement-bait, and off-voice filtering
 - market belief mapping across kept and rejected examples
 - premise input extraction: real scenes, observed tensions, reader value, proof gaps
-- rendered hook opening measurement
+- hook opening measurement and "see more" tension autopsy
 - exact phrase-pattern extraction
+- post positioning breakdown by line and phrase
+- viral-post outline extraction
+- line-to-template conversion
 - body-structure extraction
+- body-expression input extraction for the later draft lab
 - rejected-example notes
 - track-person and gold-standard recommendations
 
@@ -55,14 +71,16 @@ Research packet:
 - market belief map: max 8 bullets
 - controversy candidates: max 8
 - premise inputs: max 8
-- hook reverse-engineering autopsies: max 12
 - full adapted hook blocks: max 12
-- angle territories tested: max 12
 - exact phrase patterns: max 20
+- post positioning breakdowns: max 8
+- viral-post outlines: max 8
+- reusable post templates: max 8
 - body patterns: max 8
 - source URLs and author profile URLs
-- reach-normalized signal notes
-- rendered preview records
+- preview measurements
+- hook-to-body promise maps
+- body expression inputs
 - confidence gaps
 - save recommendations
 ```
@@ -78,13 +96,6 @@ Use `mcp__sellable__search_engagement_posts` with practical constraints:
 
 - explicit `maxAgeDays: 120` by default so research covers the past 30-120 days, not only this week's posts
 - tighten to 30-60 days for trend-sensitive topics; widen only when the topic has low volume
-- when the user gives a follower range, pass it as `targetFollowerMin` and
-  `targetFollowerMax` so the tool can expose reach-normalized signals and
-  prioritize comparable creators
-- if a source hook looks promising but follower count is missing, use
-  `mcp__sellable__fetch_linkedin_profile` on a bounded shortlist before calling
-  the source a keeper; if profile fetch is unavailable or too slow, mark
-  `follower_count_unavailable`
 - high enough engagement to matter
 - narrow enough to match the idea
 - enough result depth to see whether a creator has repeated winners, not just one viral outlier
@@ -93,19 +104,14 @@ Record every keyword, filter, search window, page, and result count.
 
 ## Weighted Signals
 
-Rank source posts with a weighted signal view. Do not sort by total engagement
-alone. Use the numeric score to decide which sources deserve study; do not let
-the number choose the final hook by itself.
+Rank source posts with a weighted signal view. Do not sort by total engagement alone.
 
 Use this scoring shape:
 
 ```text
 hook_score =
   topic_fit
-  + rendered_mobile_preview_strength
   + hook_clarity
-  + content_pattern_replicability
-  + reach_adjusted_evidence
   + creator_repeat_success
   + repost_share_strength
   + comment_quality
@@ -123,135 +129,6 @@ Guidance:
 - If share or repost data is unavailable, record `repost_data_unavailable` instead of inventing it.
 - Prefer creators with repeated high-performing posts in the same lane over one-off viral posts.
 
-## Reach-Normalized Hook Scoring
-
-Raw engagement is not the clearest signal when source creators have wildly
-different audience sizes. A post from a 100k+ follower creator can win on
-distribution even when the hook is ordinary. A post from a creator near the
-user's follower range that overperforms is a clearer signal that LinkedIn and
-readers rewarded the hook/premise.
-
-This calculation is a source-quality filter, not the final creative decision.
-After reach is controlled, the LLM still chooses the hooks to steal based on the
-visible hook, rendered first-screen promise, content pattern, premise fit, and
-whether the idea can carry without the source creator's distribution.
-
-When the user gives a target range, default to that range. For example, if the
-user says "8k to 20k followers," call `mcp__sellable__search_engagement_posts`
-with:
-
-```text
-targetFollowerMin: 8000
-targetFollowerMax: 20000
-```
-
-If the user gives no range, use the user's known follower count from memory or
-ask only when the decision depends on it. If no follower count is available, use
-raw engagement as a fallback and mark `target_follower_band_unknown`.
-
-For every shortlisted source post, record:
-
-- `authorFollowerCount`
-- `targetFollowerBand`
-- `followerBandFit`: `in_target_band`, `below_target_band`,
-  `above_target_band`, or `unknown`
-- `engagementPer1kFollowers`
-- `weightedEngagementPer1kFollowers`
-- `reachAdjustedScore`
-- `creatorBaselineMedianEngagement` when repeated posts from that creator are
-  available
-- `baselineLift`: this post's engagement divided by the creator's recent median
-  engagement in the same lane, or `creator_baseline_unavailable`
-- `confidence`: `high`, `medium`, or `low`
-- `normalizationNotes`
-
-Use this Harvest-compatible calculation when follower counts are available:
-
-```text
-weightedEngagement =
-  likes
-  + (comments * 4)
-  + (shares * 12)
-
-engagementPer1kFollowers =
-  totalEngagement / authorFollowerCount * 1000
-
-weightedEngagementPer1kFollowers =
-  weightedEngagement / authorFollowerCount * 1000
-
-reachPenaltyMultiplier =
-  1.00 when in target follower band
-  0.75 when below target band
-  0.65 when above target band but <= 2x target max
-  0.35 when above target band but <= 5x target max
-  0.15 when above target band and > 5x target max
-  0.40 when follower count is unknown
-
-reachAdjustedScore =
-  weightedEngagementPer1kFollowers * reachPenaltyMultiplier
-```
-
-When repeated posts from the same creator are available, calculate:
-
-```text
-creatorBaselineMedianEngagement =
-  median weightedEngagement across recent same-lane posts
-
-baselineLift =
-  post weightedEngagement / creatorBaselineMedianEngagement
-```
-
-Use this scoring shape when deciding which hooks to study:
-
-```text
-hook_score =
-  topic_fit
-  + rendered_mobile_preview_strength
-  + hook_clarity
-  + same_follower_band_bonus
-  + weighted_engagement_per_1k_followers
-  + creator_baseline_lift
-  + repost_share_strength
-  + substantive_comment_quality
-  + creator_repeat_success
-  - celebrity_reach_penalty
-  - tiny_sample_penalty
-  - lead_magnet_penalty
-  - engagement_bait_penalty
-  - off_voice_penalty
-```
-
-Rules:
-
-- Prefer in-band creators when the hook is strong and the engagement is real.
-- Use near-band creators as secondary evidence.
-- Penalize creators far above the target range, especially accounts above 5x
-  the target max or above 100k followers when the target range is 8k-20k.
-- Do not automatically reject large-account posts; they can still teach body
-  structure, topic heat, or category language. Do not treat them as primary hook
-  proof unless they also overperform their creator baseline.
-- Large-account hooks can be selected only when the hook carries without the
-  creator: the rendered mobile opening is strong, the premise is reusable by the
-  user, the body pattern does not depend on celebrity authority, and the source
-  either beats baseline or has unusually high reach-adjusted quality after the
-  penalty.
-- Do not overvalue tiny-account anomalies. Very high engagement per follower
-  with low absolute engagement is interesting but lower confidence.
-- When follower data is unavailable, do not invent it. Mark
-  `follower_count_unavailable`, lower confidence, and rely more on creator repeat
-  evidence, repost/share strength, comment quality, and rendered preview quality.
-- A source hook is strongest when it is in/near the target follower band, has
-  real absolute engagement, beats the creator's apparent baseline, has
-  share/comment quality, and passes rendered mobile preview.
-
-Final hook selection must explain both:
-
-- `whyTheHookCarries`: the visible words, specificity, tension, and first-screen
-  promise that work independent of reach
-- `whyTheReachEvidenceIsTrustworthy`: follower-band fit, reach-adjusted score,
-  baseline lift, share/comment quality, or why a large-account example is only
-  secondary pattern evidence
-
 Penalize lead-magnet and engagement-bait mechanics unless the user explicitly asks for that style:
 
 - `comment "template"` / `comment "guide"` / `comment "playbook"`
@@ -263,103 +140,39 @@ Penalize lead-magnet and engagement-bait mechanics unless the user explicitly as
 - "like and comment"
 - broad giveaway framing that makes engagement inflate without proving the hook/body worked
 
-## Hook Reverse Engineering Autopsy
+## Keeper Threshold
 
-For any space or LinkedIn topic, do not stop at "this is a good hook." Reverse
-engineer why the opening earned attention, which shape can be reused, and which
-parts belong to the source and must not be copied.
+Only promote a source post into template analysis when it clears a practical
+keeper threshold. A post does not have to be perfect, but it must be useful
+enough that copying its structure would teach the draft something.
 
-For each keeper source hook, record a `hookAutopsy`:
+Keeper fields:
 
 ```text
-hookAutopsy:
-  sourceHook: <exact visible opening used for analysis>
-  renderedFirstScreen: <mobile and desktop visible blocks>
-  sourceMechanism: <what the hook does structurally>
-  openLoopType: none | hidden_payoff | contradiction | proof_gap | workflow_reveal | asset_reveal | story_gap
-  clickQuestion: <the question a reader has before clicking see more>
-  promisedPayoff: <what the body/video must deliver after the click>
-  curiosityGap: <what is withheld and why that is fair>
-  specificityAnchor: <tool, person, number, object, scene, or enemy named>
-  tensionOpened: <belief, resentment, fear, status, cost, or contradiction>
-  proofImplied: <what proof the source suggests in the first screen>
-  whyItWorks: <specific words and structure, not a vibe label>
-  whyItMightBeInflated: <reach, giveaway, celebrity, outrage, or topic heat>
-  sourceShapeToKeep: <portable structure, written as a template>
-  sourceWordsNotToCopy: <phrases, jokes, proof, or context owned by source>
-  adaptationRule: <how to make it true for the user's idea and voice>
+keeper_score:
+  topic_fit: 1-10
+  hook_preview_strength: 1-10
+  see_more_tension: 1-10
+  body_payoff_strength: 1-10 | full_text_unavailable
+  positioning_density: 1-10
+  creator_repeat_success: 1-10 | unknown
+  engagement_quality: 1-10
+  replicability_for_user: 1-10
+  voice_fit: 1-10
+  penalties:
+    lead_magnet:
+    engagement_bait:
+    celebrity_or_account_size_only:
+    borrowed_proof:
+    body_unavailable:
+  verdict: keeper | maybe | reject
+  why:
 ```
 
-Good `sourceShapeToKeep` examples:
-
-- "The best [desired asset] I have right now is not in [default tool]."
-- "I gave [system/person] one prompt: [specific request]."
-- "[Common vanity metric] is useless until it becomes [business outcome]."
-- "I built [familiar workflow] inside [new interface]."
-- "Most teams [surface behavior]. Then they miss [hidden opportunity]."
-
-Bad autopsies:
-
-- "contrarian hook"
-- "strong curiosity"
-- "good storytelling"
-- "viral format"
-
-Those labels are allowed only after the concrete shape, click question, and
-payoff obligation are recorded.
-
-## Angle Exploration Before Drafting
-
-After selecting a premise, create a hook angle matrix before drafting the post.
-This is mandatory when the user asks to nail the hook, study hooks, explore a
-space, or write from a specific idea.
-
-Default matrix:
-
-- at least 8 angle territories for normal drafting
-- at least 12 angle territories when the user asks for "a ton of angles" or
-  says the hook is the main constraint
-- at least 24 generated hooks across those territories for normal drafting
-- at least 40 generated hooks when the user explicitly asks to optimize hooks
-
-Angle territories should be materially different, not synonyms. Use territories
-such as:
-
-- enemy/tool contrast
-- hidden asset
-- first-person build proof
-- workflow reveal
-- contrarian category claim
-- mistake/confession
-- market timing
-- customer/operator pain
-- asset/free reveal without comment bait
-- specific person/company signal
-- before/after transformation
-- question hook
-
-For each territory, record:
-
-```text
-angleTerritory:
-  name:
-  sourceShapesUsed:
-  premiseTensionOpened:
-  readerValueImplied:
-  bestHook:
-  mobileRenderedPreview:
-  desktopRenderedPreview:
-  clickQuestion:
-  payoffAfterFold:
-  whyThisAngleShouldWin:
-  whyThisAngleShouldLose:
-  proofNeeded:
-```
-
-Do not write the post body until the winning hook territory is chosen. The post
-body must then pay off the selected hook quickly. If the best hook says the list
-is not in Apollo, the next lines must reveal where it is. If the hook says "I
-gave Sellable one prompt," the next lines must show the prompt or the demo.
+Use `keeper` only when the post has enough hook and body visibility to create a
+template. Use `maybe` when the hook is useful but the body is unavailable or the
+post depends too much on the source creator's status. Use `reject` when the post
+is mostly reach, giveaway mechanics, copied trend language, or poor fit.
 
 ## Market Belief Map
 
@@ -441,54 +254,24 @@ Measure the visible opening for every shortlisted source post before extracting
 the hook pattern. This makes the study useful for LinkedIn, not just generally
 "good writing."
 
-Use `references/linkedin-preview-rendering.md`. LinkedIn does not publish exact
-"see more" cutoff rules. Character counts are diagnostics only. A source post
-or generated hook is not properly studied until it has a rendered mobile and
-desktop preview record.
+LinkedIn does not publish exact "see more" cutoff rules. Treat these as
+conservative v1 planning budgets:
 
-Default deterministic renderer for unpublished drafts and research comparison:
+- `pass`: opening hook is <= 110 chars including newlines, every nonblank line
+  is <= 45 chars, and the hook's core point lands before likely truncation.
+- `warn`: opening hook is 111-140 chars including newlines, any nonblank line is
+  46-55 chars, or blank lines create visual-line risk. Blank lines are allowed,
+  but they count as physical lines.
+- `fail`: opening hook is > 140 chars including newlines, any nonblank line is
+  > 55 chars, or the hook's core point depends on text after likely truncation.
 
-```text
-cssContractVersion: linkedin-preview-rendering/v1
-font size: 14px
-line height: 21px
-white space: pre-wrap
-overflow wrap: break-word
-mobile text width: 308px
-desktop text width: 582px
-review clamp: first 3 rendered text lines
-```
-
-Authenticated LinkedIn feed/composer screenshots are stronger evidence when
-available. If a screenshot is used, still record the wrapped lines and verdicts
-below so another agent can compare hooks without re-opening LinkedIn.
-
-Desktop preview has more room, but never let desktop fit compensate for a
-mobile `fail`.
+Desktop preview has more room, so record it separately, but never let desktop
+fit compensate for a mobile `fail`.
 
 For each source, record:
 
 - `sourceTextBasis`: `full_text`, `search_preview`, or `manual_user_source`
 - `openingTextUsed`
-- `renderedPreview`
-- `cssContractVersion`
-- `mobileRenderedPreviewBlock`
-- `desktopRenderedPreviewBlock`
-- `mobileRenderedLines`
-- `desktopRenderedLines`
-- `mobileRenderedLineCount`
-- `desktopRenderedLineCount`
-- `corePainProofOrCuriosityVisibleMobile`
-- `corePainProofOrCuriosityVisibleDesktop`
-- `corePointVisibleMobile`
-- `corePointVisibleDesktop`
-- `intentionalOpenLoop`
-- `specificClickQuestionVisible`
-- `payoffPlannedImmediatelyAfterClamp`
-- `seeMoreClickReason`
-- `clickQuestion`
-- `payoffAfterFold`
-- `pointAfterMobileClamp`
 - `charCountIncludingNewlines`
 - `physicalLineCount`
 - `contentLineCount`
@@ -501,28 +284,18 @@ For each source, record:
 - `desktopPreviewBudget`: `pass`, `warn`, or `fail`
 - `blankLineVisualRisk`
 - `corePointBeforeLikelyTruncation`
-- `openLoopType`
-- `renderedPreviewVerdict`: `pass`, `warn`, or `fail`
+- `seeMoreTension`: what question, contradiction, missing proof, or unfinished
+  story makes the reader want the next line
+- `curiosityDebt`: what the hook promises the body must repay
+- `firstScreenPayoffRisk`: whether the hook creates curiosity without enough
+  substance to repay it
+- `readerClickReason`: the specific reason a target reader would click "see
+  more," not a generic label like "curiosity"
 
 If only a search preview is available, do not pretend the opening is complete.
 Record `sourceTextBasis: search_preview` and lower confidence when the hook
 appears cut off or body context is unavailable.
 
-Pass/warn/fail is based on rendered output:
-
-- `pass`: the mobile rendered preview shows the pain, proof, or curiosity by
-  the end of the first 3 rendered lines, and either the core point is
-  understandable without opening "see more" or an intentional open loop creates
-  a specific click question with an immediate planned payoff.
-- `warn`: the mobile rendered preview creates useful curiosity but the core
-  point or click question is slightly softened by wrapping, blank-line rhythm,
-  or one missing context word. A compact fallback is required.
-- `fail`: the hook's real point appears after the first 3 mobile rendered
-  lines without an intentional open-loop plan, the visible open loop is vague,
-  the first rendered line is generic setup, blank lines consume the preview
-  before the reader sees the point, or desktop fit is the only reason it looks
-  good.
-
 ## Hook Extraction
 
 Extract structure and reusable language patterns, not copied prose. The goal is
@@ -535,14 +308,14 @@ For each shortlisted source post, record:
 - URL
 - author
 - author profile URL when available
-- author follower count and follower-band fit when available
 - engagement totals and available likes/comments/shares breakdown
-- reach-normalized metrics: engagement per 1k followers, weighted engagement
-  per 1k followers, reach-adjusted score, baseline lift, and confidence
 - creator repeat evidence
 - visible hook text or preview
-- rendered preview fields from the section above
+- opening preview measurement fields from the section above
 - hook mechanism
+- hook promise: what the body is now obligated to prove, reveal, or resolve
+- see-more tension: what makes the reader want the body
+- curiosity debt: what must be repaid quickly after the fold
 - exact hook language patterns: reusable words, phrase shapes, contrast forms,
   sentence shapes, and transition moves
 - story mechanism when the post is a story
@@ -551,16 +324,10 @@ For each shortlisted source post, record:
 - proof/story dependency
 - lead magnet or engagement bait penalty
 - weighted signal notes
-- reach-normalized signal notes
 - replicability score
 - track person recommendation: `yes`, `no`, or `ask_user`
 - tracking reason when recommended
 
-Do not call a source hook a keeper because the full text is strong if the
-rendered mobile opening is weak. Study what a LinkedIn reader sees before
-"see more"; the body structure can still be useful, but the hook should not be
-copied into the hook pattern set.
-
 ## Specific Language Extraction
 
 For each keeper, extract the source's specific language mechanics in this
@@ -603,6 +370,161 @@ Never reduce this section to high-level labels like "contrarian" or
 "founder story." Those labels are allowed only after the exact phrase mechanics
 are captured.
 
+## Post Positioning Categories
+
+For post research, use the familiar copy-breakdown categories, but apply them to
+public narrative posts instead of landing pages or outbound emails. Assign one
+primary category to every meaningful line or phrase, and add a secondary
+category only when the same phrase clearly does two jobs.
+
+Core categories:
+
+- `Context`: setup, scene, timing, environment, or "why this is being said now"
+- `Persona`: who the post is for or who appears in the story
+- `Problem`: pain, friction, failure mode, risk, or gap
+- `Alternative`: the old behavior, competitor, default advice, or common path
+- `Belief`: the assumption, status game, worldview, or market consensus being
+  entered
+- `Tension`: contradiction, tradeoff, discomfort, open loop, or argument bait
+- `Proof`: numbers, named events, observed outcomes, screenshots, customers,
+  repeated experience, or hard-won authority
+- `Mechanism`: the causal explanation for why the thing works or fails
+- `Capability`: the new action the reader, product, or system can perform
+- `Benefit`: positive outcome, leverage, speed, money, clarity, trust, or relief
+- `Feature`: concrete product/workflow object that powers the mechanism
+- `Identity`: founder confession, status shift, taste, vulnerability, or role
+- `Offer`: CTA, invitation, ask, or proposed next step
+- `Bridge`: transition line that moves the reader from hook to proof, from
+  proof to lesson, or from lesson to product
+
+Do not hide useful detail behind a category label. The category says what the
+line does; the technique notes must explain how the exact words do it.
+
+## Post Positioning Breakdown
+
+For every keeper post with enough text, create a line-level breakdown. This is
+the post version of the admin copy-breakdown view: every line becomes a
+positioning and narrative unit that can be templated.
+
+Use this format:
+
+```text
+Post positioning breakdown:
+source: <author + URL>
+text_basis: full_text | search_preview | manual_user_source
+overall_positioning_sequence:
+  <Category> -> <Category> -> <Category> -> ...
+
+line_map:
+1.
+  source_line:
+  char_count:
+  line_role:
+  primary_category:
+  secondary_category:
+  narrative_technique:
+  tension_created:
+  reader_question_opened:
+  body_promise:
+  proof_or_story_dependency:
+  why_this_exact_wording_works:
+  reusable_template_line:
+  adaptation_guard:
+  sellable_version_candidate:
+```
+
+Break long lines into phrase-level segments when one line contains multiple
+jobs. Preserve the original source line in the research artifact, but never
+copy it into the draft unless it is the user's own approved post.
+
+## Viral-Post Outline
+
+After the line-level breakdown, convert each keeper into a viral-post outline.
+The outline is the narrative skeleton beneath the exact words.
+
+Use this format:
+
+```text
+Viral-post outline:
+source: <author + URL>
+outline_name:
+best_for:
+not_good_for:
+hook_job:
+see_more_trigger:
+body_payoff:
+close_job:
+
+beats:
+1.
+  beat_name:
+  source_lines:
+  narrative_job:
+  positioning_categories:
+  reader_state_before:
+  reader_state_after:
+  tension_or_open_loop:
+  proof_needed:
+  reusable_instruction:
+```
+
+Examples of outline names:
+
+- proof-first roadmap
+- confession to operating rule
+- enemy naming to mechanism
+- teardown to replacement behavior
+- status reversal to concrete lesson
+- personal scene to category thesis
+
+## Line-To-Template Conversion
+
+Convert the source outline into reusable templates that preserve the narrative
+job, not the source creator's language.
+
+Use this format:
+
+```text
+Post template:
+source:
+template_name:
+positioning_sequence:
+  <Category> -> <Category> -> <Category> -> ...
+required_story_inputs:
+  - <input the user must actually have>
+required_proof_inputs:
+  - <proof needed to make the template credible>
+forbidden_borrowing:
+  - <source proof, joke, phrase, or status that cannot transfer>
+
+template_lines:
+1.
+  job:
+  line_shape:
+  allowed_moves:
+  disallowed_moves:
+  example_user_adaptation:
+```
+
+The template should be specific enough that another agent can draft from it
+without re-reading the source post. If the template only says "use a contrarian
+hook" or "tell a story," it failed.
+
+## Hook-To-Body Promise Map
+
+Every keeper hook must include a map from the preview to the body. This prevents
+the later draft from using a strong opening that the body does not repay.
+
+Record:
+
+- hook promise: what the hook says or implies the reader will get
+- curiosity debt: what the reader is waiting to learn after clicking
+- first body beat: the first line or paragraph that repays the debt
+- payoff speed: immediate | delayed | too slow
+- tension carried forward: how the body keeps the hook's question alive
+- body betrayal risk: where the body changes topic, gets generic, or overclaims
+- adaptation instruction: how the user's draft must repay the same kind of debt
+
 ## Body Structure Extraction
 
 For each keeper with full text available, extract the body in this format:
@@ -614,6 +536,9 @@ Body pattern:
 Source:
 <author + URL>
 
+Positioning sequence:
+<Context -> Proof -> Problem -> Mechanism -> Benefit ...>
+
 Sequence:
 1. <paragraph/job 1>
 2. <paragraph/job 2>
@@ -627,6 +552,13 @@ Exact language moves:
 Adapted body move:
 <how this would show up in the user's post>
 
+Body expression inputs:
+- hook promise to repay:
+- narrative beats to preserve:
+- line shapes worth adapting:
+- proof/story slots required:
+- candidate Sellable body lines:
+
 Replicability:
 high | medium | low
 ```
@@ -648,6 +580,38 @@ For story posts, do not reduce the source to "strong first line" or a generic le
 
 If the source story only works because of celebrity, outrage, giveaway mechanics, or an unavailable body section, mark it as low-replicability or `full_text_unavailable`.
 
+## Template Selection For Drafting
+
+After all keeper posts are broken down, select 1-3 source templates for the
+user's idea. Selection is based on fit, not raw engagement.
+
+For each selected template, record:
+
+```text
+Selected source template:
+template_name:
+source:
+why_this_template_fits_the_user_story:
+why_it_might_fail:
+positioning_sequence_to_borrow:
+hook_move_to_borrow:
+body_outline_to_borrow:
+line_shapes_to_test:
+required_user_inputs:
+required_proof:
+do_not_copy:
+draft_lab_instruction:
+```
+
+The draft lab instruction should tell the later premise/drafting stage exactly
+how to use the template, for example:
+
+```text
+Use the source's proof-first roadmap sequence, but replace its revenue proof
+with Christian's verified campaign-source ladder. Keep the hook's "unexpected
+best source" tension. Do not borrow the source's dinner/community proof.
+```
+
 ## Blocked States
 
 Local idea capture can still succeed when research fails.
@@ -666,8 +630,9 @@ Save the research with `mcp__sellable__save_hook_research` before drafting.
 
 The saved research must contain enough detail to support a user-visible
 `Research Learning Report`: source examples, full adapted hook blocks, exact
-phrase patterns, body structures, rejected examples, tracked-person
-recommendations, and gold-standard recommendations.
+phrase patterns, post positioning breakdowns, viral-post outlines, reusable
+post templates, hook-to-body promise maps, body structures, rejected examples,
+tracked-person recommendations, and gold-standard recommendations.
 
 If the user approves a creator/person as a recurring inspiration source, also
 call `mcp__sellable__upsert_engage_tracked_person` with: