dojo.md 0.1.0

package/courses/competitive-battlecards/scenarios/level-2/competitive-content-strategy.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+meta:
+  id: competitive-content-strategy
+  level: 2
+  course: competitive-battlecards
+  type: output
+  description: "Build a content strategy around competitive positioning — create marketing content that supports battlecard messaging and influences buyer perception before sales engagement"
+  tags: [sales, battlecards, content, marketing, positioning, SEO, intermediate]
+
+state: {}
+
+trigger: |
+  You're a Content Marketing Manager at "CloudSync" (data
+  synchronization platform, $42M ARR). Your competitive intelligence
+  team has excellent battlecards for 3 competitors: Fivetran,
+  Stitch Data, and Airbyte. But these only help AFTER a prospect
+  is in the sales cycle. Your VP of Marketing wants to "extend the
+  battlecard upstream" — creating content that shapes competitive
+  perception before prospects ever talk to sales.
+
+  The insight: 70% of your prospects have already researched
+  competitors before their first sales call. By then, they've formed
+  opinions based on competitor marketing, review sites, and peer
+  recommendations. Battlecards only work for the 30% of perception
+  that happens during the sales cycle.
+
+  Your competitors' content positions:
+  - Fivetran: Dominates SEO for "automated data pipelines" and
+    "ELT tools" — ranks #1-3 for most relevant keywords
+  - Stitch Data (Talend): Heavy analyst marketing — featured in
+    every Gartner/Forrester report, runs analyst events
+  - Airbyte: Massive developer community — open-source, 15,000
+    GitHub stars, developer evangelism program
+
+  Tasks:
+  1. Design the "Competitive Content Strategy" — a 6-month plan
+     that creates content targeting each competitor's perception
+     advantage. Include: SEO content (blog posts targeting
+     comparison keywords like "CloudSync vs Fivetran"), thought
+     leadership (analyst-facing and community), and social proof
+     content (case studies, community building). For each piece,
+     specify the competitive goal.
+
+  2. Write 3 specific content pieces (outlines with key messages):
+     a) "CloudSync vs Fivetran: Honest Comparison" blog post that
+        ranks for comparison searches — must be genuinely balanced
+     b) "The Data Pipeline Buyer's Guide" white paper that positions
+        your evaluation criteria favorably
+     c) "Why We Switched from Airbyte to CloudSync" customer story
+        targeting developer-audience
+
+  3. Address the ethics question: Your VP wants you to write "why
+     [competitor] is bad" content. Explain why attack content
+     backfires (credibility loss, SEO penalties, brand damage) and
+     propose the alternative: comparison content that is genuinely
+     balanced and useful. Include the content guidelines that keep
+     competitive content ethical and effective.
+
+assertions:
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Content strategy targets each competitor's advantage — SEO content counters Fivetran's search dominance, thought leadership counters Stitch's analyst position, community content counters Airbyte's developer base, with specific competitive goals per piece"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Competitor-targeted content strategy"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Content pieces are genuinely balanced — comparison blog acknowledges competitor strengths honestly, buyer's guide provides objective criteria (not rigged), and customer story feels authentic rather than scripted"
+    weight: 0.30
+    description: "Genuinely balanced content pieces"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Ethics argument is convincing — explains why attack content backfires (credibility, SEO, brand) with evidence, and provides alternative guidelines for competitive content that is both ethical and effective"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Convincing ethics argument"

package/courses/competitive-battlecards/scenarios/level-2/deal-stage-battlecards.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+meta:
+  id: deal-stage-battlecards
+  level: 2
+  course: competitive-battlecards
+  type: output
+  description: "Create deal-stage-specific battlecards — tailor competitive content for discovery, demo, proposal, and negotiation stages"
+  tags: [sales, battlecards, deal-stage, sales-cycle, timing, intermediate]
+
+state: {}
+
+trigger: |
+  You're a Sales Enablement Manager at "NetGuard" (network security,
+  $48M ARR). Your reps report that the same battlecard doesn't work
+  across the entire sales cycle. During discovery, prospects ask
+  different competitive questions than during negotiation.
+
+  Your sales cycle stages and typical competitive dynamics:
+
+  Stage 1: Discovery (Week 1-2)
+  Typical competitive question: "How are you different from Palo
+  Alto / CrowdStrike?"
+  What reps need: High-level differentiation, category positioning,
+  questions to ask. NOT detailed feature comparisons.
+
+  Stage 2: Demo/Evaluation (Week 3-5)
+  Typical competitive question: "Can you show me how your threat
+  detection compares to CrowdStrike's Falcon?"
+  What reps need: Feature-level proof points, POC comparison
+  frameworks, technical differentiation. NOT high-level messaging.
+
+  Stage 3: Proposal (Week 6-7)
+  Typical competitive question: "CrowdStrike quoted $X, you're $X+20%.
+  Justify the premium."
+  What reps need: TCO analysis, ROI comparison, pricing positioning.
+  NOT feature lists or discovery questions.
+
+  Stage 4: Negotiation (Week 8-10)
+  Typical competitive question: "CrowdStrike just sweetened their
+  offer. Can you match?"
+  What reps need: Negotiation tactics, discount guidelines, value
+  holds, walk-away criteria. NOT discovery or demo content.
+
+  Tasks:
+  1. Create 4 mini-battlecards for CrowdStrike — one per deal stage.
+     Each should contain only the content relevant to that stage
+     (not a full battlecard truncated, but purpose-built for the
+     stage). Include the content and explain what was excluded and
+     why.
+
+  2. Design the "Stage-Triggered Battlecard System" — how the CRM
+     automatically surfaces the right battlecard variant when a deal
+     moves to a new stage. Include: CRM integration design, the
+     trigger logic, and how it works for reps on mobile during calls.
+
+  3. Write the "Competitive Moment Map" — a visual timeline showing
+     when competitive threats are highest in your sales cycle, which
+     competitor is most dangerous at each stage, and what your team's
+     competitive advantage is at each stage. This becomes the master
+     reference for your battlecard strategy.
+
+assertions:
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Stage-specific cards are purposefully different — discovery card has positioning and questions, demo card has feature proof, proposal card has TCO/ROI, negotiation card has tactics and guidelines, each containing ONLY stage-relevant content"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Purposefully different stage cards"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "CRM integration design is practical — describes trigger logic that surfaces the right variant automatically when deal stage changes, works on mobile, and doesn't require reps to search or select manually"
+    weight: 0.30
+    description: "Practical CRM integration"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Competitive moment map is insightful — correctly identifies when competitive threats peak, which competitor is most dangerous at each stage, and your advantage at each point, creating a strategic overview of the competitive landscape across the deal cycle"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Insightful competitive moment map"

package/courses/competitive-battlecards/scenarios/level-2/fact-impact-act-framework.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+meta:
+  id: fact-impact-act-framework
+  level: 2
+  course: competitive-battlecards
+  type: output
+  description: "Apply the Fact-Impact-Act framework — structure battlecard updates as actionable intelligence briefs that tell reps what changed, why it matters, and what to do"
+  tags: [sales, battlecards, FIA, framework, intelligence, actionable, intermediate]
+
+state: {}
+
+trigger: |
+  You're a Competitive Intelligence Lead at "SecureCloud" (cloud
+  security platform, $75M ARR). Your manager introduced the FIA
+  (Fact-Impact-Act) framework for battlecard content: every piece
+  of competitive intelligence must answer three questions:
+  - Fact: What changed? (objective, verifiable)
+  - Impact: Why does it matter? (to your deals, your prospects)
+  - Act: What should reps do? (specific action, not just awareness)
+
+  You have 5 competitive intelligence signals to process:
+
+  Signal 1: Zscaler raised their enterprise pricing by 18% effective
+  next quarter.
+
+  Signal 2: CrowdStrike published a Gartner-sponsored report claiming
+  "endpoint-first" security is superior to "cloud-first" approaches
+  (your approach).
+
+  Signal 3: Palo Alto Networks just acquired a startup that does
+  exactly what your biggest differentiating feature does (AI-powered
+  threat prediction).
+
+  Signal 4: A major Fortinet customer (Fortune 100 bank) publicly
+  criticized their product for missing a zero-day attack. The story
+  is trending on security Twitter.
+
+  Signal 5: SentinelOne just posted a job listing for 50 enterprise
+  AEs in your territory, suggesting an aggressive expansion.
+
+  Tasks:
+  1. Write the FIA analysis for each of the 5 signals. For each:
+     Fact (1-2 sentences, objective), Impact (2-3 sentences, what
+     this means for your deals), Act (1-2 specific actions for reps).
+     Show how the same framework handles different types of signals
+     (pricing, content, acquisition, PR, hiring).
+
+  2. Not all signals are equal. Rank the 5 signals by urgency and
+     explain: which require immediate battlecard updates, which can
+     wait for the monthly review, and which are "watch and wait"
+     (monitor but no action yet). Include the criteria you use for
+     urgency ranking.
+
+  3. Design the "Weekly Competitive Intelligence Brief" — a template
+     using FIA format that you send to the sales team every Monday.
+     It should be: scannable in 2 minutes, prioritized by deal
+     impact, actionable (every item has an "Act"), and not more
+     than 1 page. Write a sample brief using 3 of the 5 signals.
+
+assertions:
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "FIA analyses are well-structured — Facts are objective and verifiable, Impacts connect to specific deal scenarios, and Acts are specific enough for reps to execute (not just 'be aware')"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Well-structured FIA analyses"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Urgency ranking is defensible — correctly prioritizes the acquisition threat and pricing change as most urgent (competitive positioning changes), with clear criteria for immediate vs. monthly vs. watch-and-wait"
+    weight: 0.30
+    description: "Defensible urgency ranking"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Weekly brief template is practical — 1-page format, scannable in 2 minutes, FIA-structured with clear prioritization and specific actions, with a realistic sample brief using 3 signals"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Practical weekly brief template"

package/courses/competitive-battlecards/scenarios/level-2/intermediate-battlecard-shift.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+meta:
+  id: intermediate-battlecard-shift
+  level: 2
+  course: competitive-battlecards
+  type: output
+  description: "Shift simulation — respond to a major competitive threat by creating an emergency battlecard and executing a rapid competitive response"
+  tags: [sales, battlecards, simulation, emergency, competitive-threat, intermediate]
+
+state: {}
+
+trigger: |
+  You're the Competitive Intelligence Manager at "SignFlow"
+  (e-signature and document management, $35M ARR). It's Monday
+  morning and DocuSign just made a major announcement: they're
+  launching a free tier that includes 5 signatures per month and
+  basic templates — features that overlap with 60% of your product.
+  They're also cutting their paid plans by 30%.
+
+  The impact is immediate:
+  - Your Slack is blowing up — 20 reps are reporting that prospects
+    are mentioning DocuSign's announcement in calls THIS MORNING
+  - 5 active deals are asking for a pricing response
+  - Your CEO wants to know "our strategy" by 2pm today
+  - Your current DocuSign battlecard doesn't address free tier or
+    the price cut (it was last updated 3 months ago)
+  - Social media is full of "RIP SignFlow?" posts
+
+  Your resources:
+  - You have 4 hours until the CEO meeting
+  - Product team can provide feature comparison in 1 hour
+  - Pricing team can provide analysis in 2 hours
+  - You have win/loss data from last quarter (before the change)
+
+  Tasks:
+  1. Write the "Emergency Competitive Response Plan" — what you do
+     in the next 4 hours. Include: Hour 1 (immediate triage and
+     messaging), Hour 2 (battlecard update), Hour 3 (sales team
+     enablement), Hour 4 (CEO strategy brief). For each hour,
+     specify the deliverable and who's responsible.
+
+  2. Write the updated DocuSign battlecard that addresses the free
+     tier and price cut. This must: acknowledge DocuSign's move
+     honestly (it IS a big deal), reposition SignFlow's value for
+     your target market, provide specific talk tracks for the 5
+     scenarios reps are hearing ("why should I pay when DocuSign
+     is free?"), and include a pricing response framework.
+
+  3. Write the CEO strategy brief (1 page) — the strategic analysis
+     of DocuSign's move and your recommended response. Include: what
+     they're trying to accomplish (freemium land-grab), what it means
+     for SignFlow short-term and long-term, and your recommended
+     strategic response (not just tactical battlecard updates but
+     strategic positioning).
+
+assertions:
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Emergency plan is timed and realistic — 4-hour plan with specific deliverables per hour, clear ownership, and prioritizes getting messaging to reps FIRST (they're in live calls) before strategic analysis"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Timed realistic emergency plan"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Updated battlecard is honest and strategic — acknowledges DocuSign's free tier without panic, repositions SignFlow for paid value (security, compliance, workflow), provides specific talk tracks for 'why pay?' questions"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Honest strategic battlecard update"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "CEO brief is strategically insightful — analyzes DocuSign's move beyond surface level (freemium strategy, market share play), assesses short/long-term impact, and recommends a strategic response, not just price matching"
+    weight: 0.30
+    description: "Strategically insightful CEO brief"

package/courses/competitive-battlecards/scenarios/level-2/multi-competitor-deals.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
+meta:
+  id: multi-competitor-deals
+  level: 2
+  course: competitive-battlecards
+  type: output
+  description: "Handle multi-competitor evaluations — create battlecard strategies for deals where the prospect is evaluating 3 or more vendors simultaneously"
+  tags: [sales, battlecards, multi-competitor, evaluation, strategy, intermediate]
+
+state: {}
+
+trigger: |
+  You're an AE at "CloudCRM Pro" (CRM platform, $70M ARR). You're
+  in a competitive evaluation where the prospect (a 400-person
+  financial services company) is evaluating 4 CRM vendors: you,
+  Salesforce, HubSpot, and Freshsales. The evaluation will take
+  8 weeks with a decision at the end.
+
+  The evaluation structure:
+  Week 1-2: RFP response and documentation review
+  Week 3-4: Product demos (1 hour each)
+  Week 5-6: Technical proof of concept (POC)
+  Week 7: Finalist presentations
+  Week 8: Decision committee meeting
+
+  Evaluation committee:
+  - VP of Sales (decision maker) — cares about pipeline visibility
+  - VP of IT (technical approver) — cares about integration/security
+  - CFO (budget holder) — cares about TCO and ROI
+  - Sales Operations Manager (primary evaluator) — cares about
+    automation and reporting
+
+  Your competitive position:
+  - Salesforce: Enterprise standard but over-engineered for mid-market
+  - HubSpot: Easy to use, great marketing integration, lacks
+    financial services-specific features
+  - Freshsales: Cheapest option, decent basic CRM, limited enterprise
+    features and integrations
+  - CloudCRM Pro (you): Purpose-built for financial services, strong
+    compliance features, mid-range pricing
+
+  Tasks:
+  1. Create the "Multi-Competitor Deal Strategy" — your battlecard
+     approach when facing 3 competitors simultaneously. You can't
+     run 3 separate competitive plays. Design the unified strategy
+     that positions you favorably against all 3 while addressing
+     each evaluator's priorities. Include: the win theme that works
+     against all competitors, the evaluation criteria you want to
+     emphasize, and how to handle head-to-head comparisons.
+
+  2. For each stage of the evaluation (RFP, Demo, POC, Finalist,
+     Decision), identify: the competitive threat at that stage (which
+     competitor is strongest?), your competitive advantage at that
+     stage, and the specific battlecard content you'd reference.
+     Show how competitive strategy evolves through the deal cycle.
+
+  3. Write the "Evaluation Criteria Influencing" strategy — how do
+     you shape the prospect's evaluation criteria to favor your
+     strengths? You can't do this obviously, but you can ask
+     questions and provide materials that naturally highlight criteria
+     where you excel. Include 5 specific criteria you'd try to add
+     and how to introduce each.
+
+assertions:
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Unified strategy works against all 3 — identifies a single win theme (financial services specialization) that simultaneously differentiates from Salesforce (enterprise complexity), HubSpot (generic), and Freshsales (basic), with evaluator-specific messaging"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Unified multi-competitor strategy"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Stage-specific analysis is accurate — correctly identifies competitive threats by stage (e.g., Salesforce strongest in RFP, HubSpot in demo UX, Freshsales in pricing) with appropriate battlecard content for each stage"
+    weight: 0.30
+    description: "Accurate stage-specific analysis"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Criteria influencing is subtle and strategic — 5 evaluation criteria that genuinely favor CloudCRM Pro's strengths (compliance, financial services features, implementation speed) introduced through natural questions and materials, not obvious manipulation"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Subtle criteria influencing"

package/courses/competitive-battlecards/scenarios/level-2/persona-based-battlecards.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+meta:
+  id: persona-based-battlecards
+  level: 2
+  course: competitive-battlecards
+  type: output
+  description: "Create persona-targeted battlecards — tailor competitive messaging for different buyer personas who care about different things"
+  tags: [sales, battlecards, persona, targeting, customization, intermediate]
+
+state: {}
+
+trigger: |
+  You're a Product Marketing Manager at "FinTechPro" (financial
+  technology platform, $65M ARR). You sell against Plaid and Stripe
+  Connect. Your current battlecards are one-size-fits-all, but your
+  reps report that the same competitor gets very different objections
+  depending on who they're talking to.
+
+  Your buyer personas:
+  1. CTO/VP of Engineering — Cares about: API quality, developer
+     experience, documentation, uptime SLA, data architecture
+  2. CFO/VP of Finance — Cares about: pricing model, total cost of
+     ownership, compliance costs, revenue impact, contract terms
+  3. Chief Compliance Officer — Cares about: regulatory compliance,
+     data residency, audit trail, SOC 2/PCI DSS, vendor risk
+  4. Product Manager — Cares about: time to market, feature velocity,
+     user experience, competitive features, integration ecosystem
+
+  When competing against Plaid:
+  - CTO asks: "Plaid has better API documentation and SDKs."
+  - CFO asks: "Plaid charges per connection. Your pricing is higher."
+  - CCO asks: "Plaid is used by every major bank. You're a risk."
+  - PM asks: "Plaid has instant bank verification. Do you?"
+
+  Tasks:
+  1. Create 4 persona-specific battlecard variants for the Plaid
+     competition. Each should contain: persona-specific positioning
+     statement (what matters to THIS person), the top 3 objections
+     this persona raises, the response to each, and the persona-
+     specific proof point. Show how the SAME competitor gets
+     completely different battlecard content based on audience.
+
+  2. Write the "Persona Targeting Guide" — how do reps identify
+     which persona they're selling to and which battlecard variant
+     to pull? Include: persona identification questions (ask in
+     first 2 minutes of call), persona signals (title, questions
+     they ask, concerns they raise), and the CRM workflow for
+     surfacing the right variant.
+
+  3. Your VP of Sales asks: "Do we really need 4 versions of every
+     battlecard? That's 12 total across 3 competitors." Write the
+     argument for why persona-targeting is worth the maintenance
+     effort. Include the data: which personas have the highest win
+     rate variance between targeted and generic battlecards.
+
+assertions:
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Persona variants are genuinely different — each battlecard addresses what THAT persona cares about (CTO gets API depth, CFO gets TCO analysis, CCO gets compliance proof, PM gets feature comparison) not just the same content with different headers"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Genuinely different persona variants"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Persona targeting guide is practical — provides quick identification signals (title, initial questions, concern patterns) and a CRM workflow that surfaces the right variant, usable in the first 2 minutes of a call"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Practical persona targeting"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Maintenance argument is data-backed — makes the case with projected win rate improvement, acknowledges the maintenance cost, and suggests prioritization (which persona variants deliver the most impact) rather than doing all 12 at once"
+    weight: 0.30
+    description: "Data-backed maintenance argument"

package/courses/competitive-battlecards/scenarios/level-2/win-loss-to-battlecard.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+meta:
+  id: win-loss-to-battlecard
+  level: 2
+  course: competitive-battlecards
+  type: output
+  description: "Turn win/loss analysis into battlecard content — extract actionable competitive insights from deal outcomes and translate them into rep-ready materials"
+  tags: [sales, battlecards, win-loss, analysis, insights, intermediate]
+
+state: {}
+
+trigger: |
+  You're a Competitive Intelligence Analyst at "LogicFlow" (workflow
+  automation SaaS, $50M ARR). You've completed 40 win/loss interviews
+  for deals involving your top competitor, Zapier. Here are the raw
+  findings:
+
+  Won deals (20 interviews):
+  - 75% cited LogicFlow's enterprise security features as decisive
+  - 60% said your implementation team was a differentiator
+  - 55% mentioned that Zapier felt "too consumer-grade" for their needs
+  - Key quote: "Zapier is great for simple automations but breaks
+    down when you need conditional logic across 10+ systems"
+  - Average deal size: $85K, Average cycle: 62 days
+
+  Lost deals (20 interviews):
+  - 65% said Zapier's self-serve model let them start immediately
+  - 50% said Zapier's marketplace of pre-built integrations was
+    decisive (6,000 vs. your 200)
+  - 40% said LogicFlow's pricing was "opaque" — they couldn't find
+    pricing on your website
+  - Key quote: "We liked LogicFlow more but we needed something
+    running by Friday. Zapier was live in 20 minutes."
+  - Average deal size: $35K, Average cycle: 44 days
+
+  Pattern insights:
+  - You win larger deals ($85K avg) but lose smaller ones ($35K avg)
+  - You win when the prospect needs complexity; you lose when they
+    need speed
+  - Your biggest gap: time-to-value (Zapier: minutes, LogicFlow: weeks)
+
+  Tasks:
+  1. Translate these win/loss findings into specific battlecard
+     content. Write the Zapier battlecard sections that would be
+     DIFFERENT based on this data vs. generic competitive research.
+     Include: 3 win themes, 3 landmine questions, the positioning
+     statement, and the talk track — all derived from actual deal
+     outcomes, not assumptions.
+
+  2. Create the "Win/Loss → Battlecard Translation Guide" — a
+     framework that any analyst can use to convert raw win/loss
+     interview data into battlecard content. Include: how to
+     identify patterns from interviews, how to prioritize findings,
+     how to write them in rep-ready language, and the minimum sample
+     size needed for reliable insights.
+
+  3. The data shows you lose on speed-to-value. Write the honest
+     acknowledgment section of the battlecard that addresses this
+     weakness. Reps need to know: when to acknowledge the speed gap,
+     how to reframe it as a "right tool for the right job" message,
+     and when to disqualify (prospect needs speed, not complexity).
+
+assertions:
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Battlecard content is data-derived — win themes, landmines, positioning, and talk track clearly trace back to specific win/loss findings rather than generic competitive assumptions"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Data-derived battlecard content"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Translation guide is replicable — provides a clear framework for converting any win/loss dataset to battlecard content, with pattern identification, prioritization, rep-ready language conversion, and sample size guidance"
+    weight: 0.30
+    description: "Replicable translation guide"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Honest weakness acknowledgment is useful — addresses the speed-to-value gap without being defensive, provides a clear reframe for the right situations, and includes disqualification criteria for speed-sensitive deals"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Useful weakness acknowledgment"

package/courses/competitive-battlecards/scenarios/level-3/advanced-battlecard-shift.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+meta:
+  id: advanced-battlecard-shift
+  level: 3
+  course: competitive-battlecards
+  type: output
+  description: "Shift simulation — navigate a complex competitive landscape shift where a major acquisition changes the competitive dynamics for your entire company"
+  tags: [sales, battlecards, simulation, acquisition, market-shift, advanced]
+
+state: {}
+
+trigger: |
+  You're the Head of Competitive Intelligence at "AppFlow" (workflow
+  automation, $85M ARR). BREAKING NEWS: Salesforce just announced
+  the acquisition of your #2 competitor, Workato, for $3.5B. This
+  changes everything.
+
+  Before the acquisition:
+  - Your competitive landscape: MuleSoft (#1 threat), Workato (#2),
+    Tray.io (#3), Boomi (#4)
+  - Your battlecards addressed each separately with clear positioning
+
+  After the acquisition:
+  - MuleSoft (already Salesforce) + Workato = One mega-competitor
+    with the Salesforce ecosystem behind it
+  - Workato's independent positioning is gone — it will become
+    "Salesforce Workato" or similar
+  - Salesforce now owns BOTH of your top 2 competitors
+  - Tray.io and Boomi may respond with their own pivots
+  - Your customers are panicking: "Should we switch to Salesforce
+    now that they own everything?"
+  - Your prospects are confused: "If Salesforce bought Workato,
+    should we just buy the Salesforce stack?"
+
+  Immediate impacts:
+  - 15 active deals where Workato is a competitor: all paused
+  - 8 active deals where MuleSoft is a competitor: prospects are
+    asking about Workato integration
+  - Customer retention: 5 accounts on annual renewal are asking
+    about Salesforce's combined offering
+  - Your sales team is demoralized: "How do we compete against
+    Salesforce + Workato?"
+
+  Tasks:
+  1. Write the "Competitive Landscape Restructure" — completely
+     rethink your competitive positioning in light of the acquisition.
+     Include: what changes (Salesforce now owns your top 2
+     competitors), what stays the same (independent vendor advantages),
+     new competitive angles (acquisition disruption, customer
+     confusion, integration uncertainty), and the updated battlecard
+     strategy.
+
+  2. Create 3 emergency deliverables (needed within 48 hours):
+     a) Updated Workato battlecard reflecting Salesforce ownership
+     b) Internal FAQ for sales team addressing their concerns
+     c) Customer email template for at-risk accounts reassuring
+        them about AppFlow's independence
+
+  3. Write the "Anti-Platform Play" — the strategic positioning for
+     AppFlow as the independent, best-of-breed alternative to the
+     Salesforce monopoly. This becomes your new competitive narrative
+     for ALL battlecards. Include: the independence value proposition,
+     the anti-lock-in message, and the proof that best-of-breed
+     outperforms platform bundles in your category.
+
+assertions:
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Landscape restructure is strategically sound — correctly identifies new dynamics (Salesforce monopoly, integration uncertainty, customer confusion), new competitive angles (independence, focus, integration flexibility), and how all battlecards need to evolve"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Strategically sound restructure"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Emergency deliverables are usable — battlecard addresses Salesforce ownership realistically, internal FAQ calms team concerns with data and strategy, customer email provides genuine reassurance without dismissing the acquisition's significance"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Usable emergency deliverables"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Anti-platform positioning is compelling — makes a credible case for independent best-of-breed over platform bundles, with specific arguments (focus, innovation speed, no lock-in, integration flexibility) that resonate with prospects"
+    weight: 0.30
+    description: "Compelling anti-platform positioning"

package/courses/competitive-battlecards/scenarios/level-3/analyst-relations-battlecards.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+meta:
+  id: analyst-relations-battlecards
+  level: 3
+  course: competitive-battlecards
+  type: output
+  description: "Leverage analyst relations for competitive advantage — use Gartner, Forrester, and IDC positioning to strengthen battlecards and influence buyer perception"
+  tags: [sales, battlecards, analyst-relations, Gartner, Forrester, influence, advanced]
+
+state: {}
+
+trigger: |
+  You're the Director of Analyst Relations and Competitive
+  Intelligence at "CloudOps" (cloud operations platform, $80M ARR).
+  The Gartner Magic Quadrant for Cloud Management just came out.
+  Results:
+
+  - Leaders: VMware, ServiceNow
+  - Challengers: IBM, BMC
+  - Visionaries: CloudOps (you), Flexera
+  - Niche Players: Morpheus, Scalr
+
+  Your sales team is both excited ("We're in the MQ!") and
+  frustrated ("Why aren't we a Leader?"). Meanwhile, your top
+  competitor VMware is plastering "Gartner Leader" across every
+  piece of marketing. Your second competitor ServiceNow is citing
+  their MQ position in every sales call.
+
+  Additional analyst coverage:
+  - Forrester Wave for Cloud Cost Management: CloudOps ranked "Strong
+    Performer" (VMware is Leader)
+  - IDC MarketScape for Cloud Optimization: CloudOps ranked "Major
+    Player" (ServiceNow is Leader)
+  - GigaOm Radar for Cloud Observability: CloudOps ranked "Leader"
+    (finally, you lead something)
+
+  Tasks:
+  1. Write the analyst-integrated battlecard content for VMware and
+     ServiceNow. For each: how to acknowledge their Leader position
+     without conceding (Gartner evaluates 15 criteria — you may lead
+     on the ones that matter to THIS prospect), how to leverage your
+     Visionary position ("Visionary means innovation — Leaders often
+     mean legacy"), and when to cite the GigaOm report where you're
+     the Leader.
+
+  2. Create the "Analyst Intelligence Playbook" — how reps should
+     use and NOT use analyst reports in competitive selling. Include:
+     the 3 things you CAN say about analyst reports ("we're
+     recognized by Gartner in this market"), the 3 things you should
+     NEVER say ("Gartner says we're better"), and how to respond
+     when a prospect says "but Gartner says VMware is the Leader."
+
+  3. Write the analyst relations strategy for moving from Visionary
+     to Leader in the next MQ cycle. Include: the 5 criteria Gartner
+     uses that you're weakest on, the specific actions to improve
+     each, and how this strategy feeds into your battlecards (future
+     competitive positioning based on where you'll be in 12 months).
+
+assertions:
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Analyst-integrated content is sophisticated — acknowledges competitor Leader status without conceding, reframes Visionary as innovation-focused, strategically uses GigaOm where advantageous, and helps reps navigate analyst positioning conversations"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Sophisticated analyst integration"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "Analyst playbook has clear do's and don'ts — 3 permitted uses that are accurate and ethical, 3 prohibited uses that would be misleading, and a specific response for 'Gartner says they're Leader' that redirects to prospect-specific criteria"
+    weight: 0.35
+    description: "Clear analyst playbook"
+  - type: llm_judge
+    criteria: "MQ advancement strategy is realistic — identifies specific Gartner criteria, proposes actionable improvements, and connects the 12-month analyst strategy to future battlecard positioning"
+    weight: 0.30
+    description: "Realistic MQ advancement strategy"