jumpstart-mode 1.1.13 → 1.1.14

package/.github/skills/gtm-positioning-strategy/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,164 @@
+---
+name: gtm-positioning-strategy
+description: 'Create a defensible market position and convert generic messaging into Jump Start- and AI Innovation Pod-ready positioning. Use this whenever the user needs to sharpen GTM messaging, differentiate against competitors, choose safer AI framing, rewrite headlines or pitch language, or turn discovery into a positioning recommendation, messaging matrix, or rollout plan. Trigger even when the user asks in consulting language like value proposition, narrative, ICP fit, market confusion, conversion weakness, category framing, proposal messaging, or sales enablement rather than explicitly saying positioning.'
+license: MIT
+compatibility: 'Cross-platform. Optional web access is useful for current competitor-message audits or validating public category claims.'
+metadata:
+  author: Smit Patel (https://linkedin.com/in/smitkpatel)
+  source: https://github.com/beingsmit/technical-product-gtm
+  version: "2.0.0"
+  updated: "2026-04-30"
+  domain: jumpstart-and-pod
+argument-hint: 'Optional: target offering, buyer persona, competitors, current messaging, desired artifact, and whether the output should bias toward Jump Start entry or Pod expansion'
+---
+
+# Positioning Strategy
+
+Use this skill to turn vague differentiation into a specific, defensible position that sales teams can repeat and buyers can understand. In this workspace, that usually means producing client-safe messaging for Jump Start offers, AI Innovation Pod offers, adjacent accelerators, or a named client use case without overstating delivery certainty.
+
+The job is not just inventing better words. The job is to connect market context, buyer psychology, structural advantage, and engagement reality into a position the team can actually sell and deliver.
+
+## Trigger Cues
+
+Use this skill when the user:
+- says the messaging sounds generic, interchangeable, buzzword-heavy, or too similar to competitors
+- wants to position Jump Start, the AI Innovation Pod, or a client-specific AI offer against internal teams, hyperscalers, Big 4 firms, or product vendors
+- asks whether to use terms like copilot, agent, assistant, teammate, accelerator, workshop, advisory, managed service, or subscription capability
+- needs a positioning statement, headline set, message house, proof points, buyer-specific value proposition, or rollout plan
+- wants to translate discovery findings, workshop outputs, or delivery realities into market-facing language without implying unsupported implementation commitments
+- asks how to test positioning changes before changing a website, proposal, or deck narrative
+
+Do not use this skill when the user mainly needs pricing mechanics, proposal redlines, stakeholder mapping, or detailed solution architecture without a clear messaging or differentiation problem.
+
+## Modes
+
+| User need | Mode | Primary output |
+|-----------|------|----------------|
+| Sharpen a single offer or narrative | Standard | Positioning statement, proof points, and recommended wording |
+| Shape Jump Start entry messaging | Jump Start | Positioning recommendation plus buyer-safe scope and handoff language |
+| Position the Pod or an expansion motion | Pod Expansion | Differentiated capability narrative, service-tier framing, and rollout guidance |
+
+## First Response
+
+Lock these items before drafting. If the user already gave them, do not ask again.
+
+1. What is being positioned: an offer, workshop, capability, product, or client-specific initiative
+2. Primary buyer or buying group
+3. Closest alternatives the buyer will compare against
+4. Desired artifact: short recommendation, message matrix, slide-ready copy, proposal language, or testing plan
+5. Whether the output must stay discovery-safe, sales-ready, or launch-ready
+
+## Resource Map
+
+Use bundled files instead of overloading this prompt.
+
+| File | Use when |
+|------|----------|
+| [references/workflow.md](./references/workflow.md) | You need the end-to-end workflow, mode selection, or output rules |
+| [references/jumpstart-pod-positioning.md](./references/jumpstart-pod-positioning.md) | The work touches Jump Start, the AI Innovation Pod, service tiers, or handoff language |
+| [references/word-choice-and-framing.md](./references/word-choice-and-framing.md) | You are calibrating risky wording, buyer psychology, or AI framing choices |
+| [references/positioning-tests.md](./references/positioning-tests.md) | The user wants an A/B plan, Crawl-Walk-Run rollout, or measurable validation approach |
+| [templates/positioning-recommendation-template.md](./templates/positioning-recommendation-template.md) | The user needs a concise client-safe recommendation |
+| [templates/message-house-template.md](./templates/message-house-template.md) | The user wants structured messaging by audience, proof, and objections |
+| [examples/gtm-positioning-examples.md](./examples/gtm-positioning-examples.md) | You want worked examples for generic, Jump Start, and Pod scenarios |
+| [evals/evals.json](./evals/evals.json) | You are regression-testing or improving this skill |
+
+## Core Principles
+
+1. Position on what the buyer can understand now, not on roadmap ambition.
+2. Prefer collaboration, control, and measurable business outcomes over threatening automation language unless the audience clearly wants autonomy.
+3. Separate confirmed facts from hypotheses, assumptions, and proof still needed.
+4. Protect delivery teams from bad promises. Discovery outputs are not implementation guarantees.
+5. When the offer is service-led, differentiate on capability model, velocity, governance, and fit with client operating reality, not on empty superlatives.
+
+## Operating Workflow
+
+1. Choose the mode and load the relevant reference files.
+2. Normalize the ask into five fields: buyer, problem, alternatives, differentiator, and proof.
+3. Diagnose whether the real gap is wording, position, proof, packaging, or rollout discipline.
+4. Draft one primary positioning statement and, if needed, one secondary alternative for testing.
+5. Convert the position into the requested artifact using the closest template.
+6. If the context is Jump Start or Pod-related, add explicit scope boundaries, handoff logic, and next-step fit.
+7. If the user wants testing, define the smallest credible Crawl-Walk-Run validation plan with measurable signals.
+
+## Diagnostic Questions
+
+Use these to sharpen the position. Do not dump all of them if the context is already clear.
+
+- Who is the buyer, and what risk are they trying to reduce?
+- What alternatives will they compare this against, including doing nothing?
+- What structural advantage, delivery model, or proof can we credibly claim now?
+- What wording will trigger fear, confusion, or internal resistance?
+- Is this best framed as a Jump Start entry point, a Pod expansion path, or an adjacent capability handoff?
+
+## Output Rules
+
+- Default to pasteable markdown with consulting-ready headings.
+- Lead with recommendation first, then rationale, then risks and open questions.
+- When information is incomplete, label the draft as hypothesis-driven instead of inventing certainty.
+- For Jump Start contexts, emphasize validation, prioritization, and path-to-next-step.
+- For Pod contexts, emphasize subscription capability, delivery model, governance, and surrounding team interfaces without claiming the Pod replaces all adjacent functions.
+- Avoid unsupported claims like best-in-class, fully autonomous, end-to-end transformation, or guaranteed ROI unless the user supplied evidence.
+
+## Standard Output Shape
+
+```markdown
+## Executive Summary
+[2-4 sentences on the recommended position and why it fits]
+
+## Positioning Recommendation
+- **Who it is for:** ...
+- **Problem it solves:** ...
+- **How it is different:** ...
+- **Why to believe it:** ...
+
+## Recommended Messaging
+**Headline:** ...
+**Sub-headline:** ...
+**Proof points:**
+1. ...
+2. ...
+3. ...
+
+## Risks and Guardrails
+- Confirmed facts: ...
+- Assumptions: ...
+- Risks if used as-is: ...
+
+## Next Step
+[test, proposal insertion, workshop language update, or enablement action]
+```
+
+Use [templates/message-house-template.md](./templates/message-house-template.md) when the user needs persona-specific messaging, objection handling, or multi-channel alignment rather than a short recommendation.
+
+## Quick Heuristics
+
+- If one word increases perceived loss of control, swap it for a collaboration word and test it.
+- If the message needs a long technical explanation to sound differentiated, the positioning is probably weak.
+- If the claim can be copied by a competitor in one sprint, it is not a durable position.
+- If the buyer mainly needs confidence to start, position on validation speed and risk reduction before broader transformation.
+- If the buyer is already committed and needs sustained velocity, position on integrated capability and operating model.
+
+## Validation Checklist
+
+Before finishing, confirm that:
+
+1. The position names a specific buyer, problem, differentiator, and proof basis.
+2. The wording matches buyer psychology and does not create avoidable fear.
+3. Scope boundaries are explicit where discovery and delivery commitments could be confused.
+4. Jump Start versus Pod fit is named when relevant.
+5. The final output matches the user's artifact need: recommendation, message house, test plan, or rollout guidance.
+
+## Regression Evals
+
+Use [evals/evals.json](./evals/evals.json) to verify the skill still handles:
+- generic B2B positioning cleanup
+- Jump Start messaging and handoff logic
+- AI Innovation Pod expansion positioning with client-safe differentiation
+
+## Related Skills
+
+- `gtm-ai-gtm` for AI-specific objections, trust, and pricing context
+- `company-research` for account context and buyer landscape input
+- `proto-persona` for stakeholder and buying-center hypotheses
+- `sow-proposal-reviewer` when the task shifts from positioning into contractual or scope language

package/.github/skills/gtm-positioning-strategy/evals/evals.json

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+{
+  "skill_name": "gtm-positioning-strategy",
+  "evals": [
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "prompt": "Our messaging for a new AI workflow advisory offer sounds too much like every other consulting firm. Rewrite our positioning so it feels specific to operations leaders and does not rely on generic AI transformation language.",
+      "expected_output": "A concise positioning recommendation with buyer, problem, differentiator, proof orientation, and safer message wording rather than buzzwords.",
+      "files": [],
+      "expectations": [
+        "The response identifies a specific buyer or buying group.",
+        "The response explains a clear differentiator or defensible angle.",
+        "The response avoids using generic AI transformation language as the main positioning claim."
+      ]
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "prompt": "Draft Jump Start positioning for a client-facing deck. I want it to sound valuable and practical, but it cannot imply that the workshop includes full implementation. Include a recommended headline, sub-headline, and 3 proof points.",
+      "expected_output": "Jump Start-specific positioning with explicit scope guardrails, practical validation framing, and slide-ready messaging.",
+      "files": [],
+      "expectations": [
+        "The response includes a headline and a sub-headline.",
+        "The response includes three proof points.",
+        "The response explicitly preserves the boundary between Jump Start and full implementation."
+      ]
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "prompt": "Help me explain why the AI Innovation Pod is different from staff augmentation. The audience is an executive sponsor comparing us to hiring a few contractors. I need a message house plus risks and open questions.",
+      "expected_output": "A Pod-oriented differentiated narrative centered on integrated capability, subscription model, and explicit guardrails, plus a structured message house.",
+      "files": [],
+      "expectations": [
+        "The response includes a message house or equivalent structured messaging table.",
+        "The response differentiates the Pod from staff augmentation or individual contractors.",
+        "The response includes risks and open questions or assumptions."
+      ]
+    }
+  ]
+}

package/.github/skills/gtm-positioning-strategy/examples/gtm-positioning-examples.md

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+# GTM Positioning Examples
+
+## Example 1: Generic B2B AI Offer
+
+### Prompt Shape
+`Our AI analytics offering sounds like every other consultancy. Can you help us position it better for operations leaders?`
+
+### Good Output Shape
+
+## Executive Summary
+Position the offer around faster operational decision cycles, not generic AI transformation. The buyer is an operations leader who needs practical throughput and visibility improvements, so the message should emphasize workflow acceleration, measurable bottleneck reduction, and governed rollout instead of broad innovation language.
+
+## Recommended Position
+- **Offer / Capability:** AI analytics offering
+- **Primary buyer:** Operations leader
+- **Core problem:** Slow decisions caused by fragmented reporting and repetitive manual analysis
+- **Recommended position:** A practical analytics acceleration offer that shortens decision cycles and surfaces operational bottlenecks without forcing a large-scale platform reset
+- **Why this is defensible:** It positions the work around workflow outcomes and lower adoption friction rather than commodity analytics claims
+
+## Example 2: Jump Start Entry Motion
+
+### Prompt Shape
+`Help me rewrite our Jump Start description so it feels more compelling but doesn't sound like we are promising a full implementation.`
+
+### Good Output Shape
+
+## Executive Summary
+Position Jump Start as a structured entry point for validating priority AI use cases, aligning stakeholders, and identifying the safest next move. The key is to make the value feel concrete while preserving the boundary between discovery and implementation.
+
+## Recommended Messaging
+**Headline:** Structured AI acceleration to move from ideas to a prioritized path forward
+
+**Sub-headline:** Jump Start helps business and technology teams validate use cases, align on risks and dependencies, and leave with a practical roadmap for the next phase.
+
+**Guardrail:** Do not describe the workshop as end-to-end delivery or imply enterprise rollout is included.
+
+## Example 3: AI Innovation Pod Expansion
+
+### Prompt Shape
+`We need to explain why the AI Innovation Pod is different from just staffing a few AI engineers. Draft positioning for an executive buyer.`
+
+### Good Output Shape
+
+## Executive Summary
+Position the Pod as a subscription capability that gives the client an integrated innovation engine rather than a loose collection of resumes. The value is faster learning cycles, reduced coordination overhead, and a clearer path from validated concept to delivery momentum.
+
+## Message House
+
+| Layer | Content |
+|------|---------|
+| Core promise | Subscribe to an AI innovation capability, not just individual labor |
+| Audience | Executive buyer sponsoring AI execution |
+| Problem | Fragmented staffing slows experimentation and creates management overhead |
+| Differentiator | Pre-integrated team spanning strategy, architecture, analysis, and build |
+| Proof | Structured service tiers, explicit governance posture, and clear adjacent-team handoffs |
+
+## Suggested Copy
+**Headline:** An AI innovation capability built for speed, not staffing overhead
+
+**Sub-headline:** The AI Innovation Pod gives you a pre-integrated team that can validate, shape, and advance priority AI workstreams while staying connected to the teams needed for scale and run.

package/.github/skills/gtm-positioning-strategy/references/jumpstart-pod-positioning.md

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+# Jump Start And Pod Positioning Notes
+
+Use this file when the request touches the repository's core offers.
+
+## Jump Start Positioning Bias
+
+Jump Start should usually be framed as a low-friction entry motion that helps a client:
+
+- clarify where AI can create near-term value
+- align stakeholders around a practical path forward
+- de-risk tool, workflow, and governance decisions
+- leave with prioritized actions, not vague inspiration
+
+Recommended positioning language themes:
+
+- structured acceleration
+- practical validation
+- workshop-to-roadmap continuity
+- client-safe decision support
+
+Be careful with these claims:
+
+- `production-ready in days`
+- `full enterprise transformation`
+- `end-to-end delivery included`
+
+Those can overpromise relative to a Jump Start motion.
+
+## AI Innovation Pod Positioning Bias
+
+The Pod should usually be framed as an integrated capability model rather than a stack of individual consultants.
+
+Recommended themes:
+
+- innovation as a service
+- pre-integrated multi-disciplinary team
+- subscription flexibility
+- velocity of learning and delivery momentum
+- explicit handoffs to adjacent engineering, testing, data, and operations teams
+
+Useful proof angles:
+
+- faster movement from idea to validated build slice
+- less coordination overhead than assembling one-off staffing mixes
+- clearer accountability across strategy, architecture, analysis, and build
+
+## Jump Start To Pod Handoff
+
+When the task needs both, use this sequence:
+
+1. Position Jump Start as the entry point for validation, prioritization, and operating assumptions.
+2. Position the Pod as the follow-on capability when the client needs sustained build velocity, backlog ownership, or structured experimentation.
+3. Make the handoff explicit instead of blurring the two offers.
+
+Example handoff sentence:
+
+`Jump Start helps the client decide where to focus and how to proceed safely; the AI Innovation Pod becomes the follow-on capability when those decisions need to turn into a managed backlog, working prototypes, and measurable delivery momentum.`
+
+## Service-Tier Framing
+
+When relevant, frame tiers by speed, access depth, and scope of influence rather than by hours.
+
+| Tier posture | Messaging emphasis |
+|-------------|--------------------|
+| Ignition-like | Validate direction, de-risk decisions, provide expert guidance |
+| Turbo-like | Co-create and accelerate delivery with active backlog movement |
+| Overdrive-like | Highest-touch execution, embedded operating rhythm, accelerated decision cycles |
+
+Do not invent tier commitments if the source material has not established them for the current client artifact.

package/.github/skills/gtm-positioning-strategy/references/positioning-tests.md

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+# Positioning Tests
+
+Use this file when the user wants to test a new narrative instead of just debating it.
+
+## Crawl-Walk-Run Rollout
+
+### Crawl
+
+Goal: validate wording before changing major assets.
+
+Recommended actions:
+
+- A/B test email outreach with two position variants
+- test homepage or landing page headlines
+- run two versions of a sales opener or workshop invitation
+
+Signals to track:
+
+- reply rate
+- meeting book rate
+- click-through rate
+- qualitative objections or confusion
+
+### Walk
+
+Goal: align internal assets to the best-performing angle.
+
+Recommended actions:
+
+- rewrite proposal boilerplate or deck narrative
+- update call scripts and objection handling
+- create proof-point examples for key personas
+
+Signals to track:
+
+- seller usability
+- faster narrative consistency across assets
+- improved early-stage conversion behavior
+
+### Run
+
+Goal: scale the validated position across channels and offers.
+
+Recommended actions:
+
+- update website, decks, outbound, and collateral
+- align customer success and delivery language
+- create persona- or use-case-specific landing variants
+
+Signals to track:
+
+- pipeline quality
+- win-rate change
+- customer recognition and retention of the offer narrative
+
+## Good Test Design
+
+- Test one meaningful variable at a time.
+- Use a live buyer signal when possible.
+- Keep a control version.
+- Avoid declaring a winner from internal preference alone.
+
+## Sample Recommendation Language
+
+`Run a two-week Crawl test comparing the current "AI transformation" language against a narrower "practical AI acceleration" angle in outbound and workshop invite copy. Use reply rate and meeting-booked rate as the primary signals, then carry the winner into proposal and deck language during the Walk phase.`

package/.github/skills/gtm-positioning-strategy/references/word-choice-and-framing.md

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+# Word Choice And Framing
+
+Use this file when the prompt is really about risky wording, buyer psychology, or how an offer should feel.
+
+## Enterprise-Safe AI Framing
+
+Words that often create fear:
+
+- autonomous
+- replaces
+- fully automated
+- AI-first
+- no humans required
+
+Words that usually reduce resistance:
+
+- teammate
+- copilot
+- guided
+- human-in-the-loop
+- accelerates repetitive work
+- you stay in control
+
+## Service Positioning Framing
+
+Weak service wording:
+
+- best-in-class
+- end-to-end transformation
+- strategic and tactical partner for everything
+- full-stack innovation
+
+Stronger service wording:
+
+- targeted capability for a specific phase
+- structured acceleration around named workflows
+- integrated team that reduces coordination overhead
+- practical path from discovery to managed execution
+
+## When To Use Stronger Automation Language
+
+Use words like `agent` or `autonomous` only when all three are true:
+
+1. The capability genuinely acts without per-step approval.
+2. The audience is comfortable with higher automation.
+3. The output also names control, escalation, and oversight.
+
+If any of those are missing, prefer collaborative framing.
+
+## Rewrite Pattern
+
+When a phrase feels risky, rewrite it through this ladder:
+
+1. What fear might this create?
+2. What value are we actually trying to signal?
+3. What safer wording preserves that value?
+
+Example:
+
+- Risky: `Autonomous AI agent that replaces repetitive analyst work.`
+- Safer: `AI teammate that handles repetitive analyst tasks while your team stays in control of review and decisions.`
+
+## Common Failure Mode
+
+Teams often think the positioning problem is lack of boldness. In enterprise settings it is more often lack of trust, lack of proof, or lack of operational clarity.

package/.github/skills/gtm-positioning-strategy/references/workflow.md

@@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
+# Positioning Workflow
+
+Use this file when you need the full workflow for turning a messy GTM prompt into a client-safe positioning artifact.
+
+## 1. Normalize The Ask
+
+Reduce the request to these fields:
+
+| Field | What to capture |
+|------|------------------|
+| Offer | What is being positioned |
+| Buyer | Who must believe it |
+| Problem | What risk, friction, or opportunity matters most |
+| Alternatives | What the buyer will compare against |
+| Differentiator | What is credibly distinct right now |
+| Proof | What evidence exists today |
+
+If one of these is missing, proceed with a hypothesis-driven draft and label the missing part explicitly.
+
+## 2. Diagnose The Real Problem
+
+Positioning issues usually come from one of five root causes:
+
+1. **Word choice**: the offer is sound, but the language creates fear or confusion.
+2. **Packaging**: the capability exists, but the offer shape is unclear.
+3. **Proof gap**: the story is interesting but not yet believable.
+4. **Market sameness**: the message sounds like everyone else.
+5. **Rollout discipline**: the team wants to reposition before testing.
+
+Name the root cause before recommending language.
+
+## 3. Choose The Output Mode
+
+| Situation | Best output |
+|----------|-------------|
+| One-off advisory answer | Positioning recommendation |
+| Proposal, deck, or sales enablement work | Message house |
+| Web or outbound rewrite before launch | Headline plus sub-headline set |
+| Internal debate about changing the narrative | Test plan with Crawl-Walk-Run steps |
+
+## 4. Write The Positioning Statement
+
+Use this structure first, then adapt:
+
+`We help [buyer] achieve [outcome] by [approach], unlike [alternative], because [proof or structural advantage].`
+
+Good output is specific enough to believe and broad enough to scale across adjacent assets.
+
+## 5. Add Delivery-Safe Guardrails
+
+This workspace requires explicit boundaries.
+
+- If the artifact is discovery-oriented, say so.
+- If the position implies implementation depth, name the dependency or follow-on phase.
+- If the offer needs adjacent teams for production scale, governance, QA, or operations, say so.
+
+## 6. Tailor For Jump Start Or Pod
+
+### Jump Start
+
+Bias toward:
+- practical entry point
+- fast validation
+- prioritized use cases
+- adoption, governance, and next-step clarity
+
+Avoid implying:
+- guaranteed implementation
+- enterprise-wide transformation in the first motion
+- fixed future-state architecture unless already confirmed
+
+### AI Innovation Pod
+
+Bias toward:
+- integrated capability instead of staff augmentation
+- subscription economics and velocity of learning
+- flexible service tiers and surrounding-team handoffs
+- ongoing innovation with governance and observability in view
+
+Avoid implying:
+- the Pod replaces every adjacent capability
+- unlimited execution without client participation
+- production ownership without CIS, quality, or platform dependencies
+
+## 7. Finish With Actionability
+
+Every response should end with one of these:
+
+- a recommended wording set
+- a test plan
+- a next-asset insertion point such as proposal, deck, website, or workshop agenda
+- a short list of open questions needed to firm up the position

package/.github/skills/gtm-positioning-strategy/templates/message-house-template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+## Executive Summary
+[short recommendation on the overall positioning direction]
+
+## Positioning Statement
+`We help [buyer] achieve [outcome] by [approach], unlike [alternative], because [proof].`
+
+## Message House
+
+| Layer | Content |
+|------|---------|
+| Core promise | [single main claim] |
+| Audience | [persona or segment] |
+| Problem | [pain, risk, or opportunity] |
+| Differentiator | [what is distinct] |
+| Proof | [evidence, capability, or delivery model] |
+
+## Persona Angles
+
+| Persona | What they care about | Messaging angle | Likely objection | Response |
+|--------|-----------------------|-----------------|------------------|----------|
+| [persona] | [priority] | [angle] | [objection] | [response] |
+
+## Suggested Copy
+**Headline:** [headline]
+
+**Sub-headline:** [sub-headline]
+
+**Three supporting bullets:**
+1. [bullet]
+2. [bullet]
+3. [bullet]
+
+## Rollout Guidance
+- **Use now in:** [proposal, deck, homepage, email, workshop invite]
+- **Test before broad launch:** [what should still be validated]
+- **Guardrails:** [what not to claim]

package/.github/skills/gtm-positioning-strategy/templates/positioning-recommendation-template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+## Executive Summary
+[2-4 sentences stating the recommended position, why it is credible, and what business problem it helps solve]
+
+## Recommended Position
+- **Offer / Capability:** [what is being positioned]
+- **Primary buyer:** [who it is for]
+- **Core problem:** [what pain or risk matters most]
+- **Recommended position:** [one concise statement]
+- **Why this is defensible:** [structural advantage, delivery model, evidence, or market gap]
+
+## Messaging Draft
+**Headline:** [short and clear]
+
+**Sub-headline:** [who it helps, what it does, and why it matters]
+
+**Proof points:**
+1. [proof point]
+2. [proof point]
+3. [proof point]
+
+## Risks And Guardrails
+- **Confirmed facts:** [facts]
+- **Assumptions:** [assumptions]
+- **Risks if used as-is:** [risks]
+- **Out of scope / needs follow-on:** [boundaries]
+
+## Recommended Next Step
+[smallest useful next step: test, deck rewrite, proposal insertion, or workshop copy update]