wizz-method 2.11.0 → 2.11.2

package/src/modules/lowticket/skills/wizz-lowticket-metodologia/knowledge/12c-anatomia-low-ticket.md

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
 
 **What's here:** `12.7-A` the fixed 11-block anatomy of a pure low-ticket page, the production checklist, creative rules, and the checkout banner
 **Siblings:** radar and rubric in [`12-mineracao-ofertas.md`](12-mineracao-ofertas.md) · verdict in [`12a-mineracao-veredito.md`](12a-mineracao-veredito.md) · the factory and its prompts in [`12b-fabrica-de-ofertas.md`](12b-fabrica-de-ofertas.md)
-**Note:** synthetic testimonials is a blocked tactic — see [guardrails 23](guardrails.md).
+**Note:** testimonials only from real customers; see the condition in [guardrails 23](guardrails.md).
 
 ### 12.7-A The printed guide closes the gap
 
@@ -108,4 +108,4 @@ Urgency with a real deadline remains allowed and is even stronger: it requires a
 
 > The number of creatives per ad set conflicts with the ruler in §4.12 item 3 (one set per angle, up to 5 inside; for hook testing, see [point 52](pontos-em-aberto.md)). See [Open point 31](pontos-em-aberto.md).
 
-**After it goes live:** if it doesn't sell, take a screenshot of the ads manager columns and send it to the same Claude that built the offer, because "it already has the whole context and can tell you whether the hole is in the creative, the page, or the checkout." If it sells, raise the budget **30% at a time, never double it**, "because doubling resets the learning" (already in 12.3). Current ruler since 2026-09-24: vertical scale by ROAS in [`03`](03-campanha-bidcap.md) §3.2 ([point 54](pontos-em-aberto.md)); the 30% only applies for ROAS between 2.0 and 2.5 (diverges from 03 §3.2's ROAS-based ruler, point 54; see [open point 56](pontos-em-aberto.md)).
+**After it goes live:** if it doesn't sell, take a screenshot of the ads manager columns and send it to the same Claude that built the offer, because "it already has the whole context and can tell you whether the hole is in the creative, the page, or the checkout." If it sells, wait out the 3 validation days and only then raise the budget by the ROAS ruler in [`03`](03-campanha-bidcap.md) §3.2 (≥ 2.5 → +50% · 2.0 to 2.5 → +30% · < 2.0 → +20%); never double it, "because doubling resets the learning" (already in 12.3). *(Rule adopted on 2026-09-24, [points 54 and 56](pontos-em-aberto.md); the source said "30% at a time".)*

package/src/modules/lowticket/skills/wizz-lowticket-metodologia/knowledge/14-vocabulario.md

@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@
 | **Superestrutura (Superstructure)** | A proof/element that already lives in the audience's head (Monjaro, "Asian women don't age") used as an anchor. |
 | **Play rate / connect rate** | % who hit play on the video / % who reach the page after the click. |
 | **Showrun** | A screen recording opening the product from the inside, used as VSL content for low ticket. |
-| **BBF** | An Instagram profile dedicated to the offer (2-line bio, 3 highlights, daily story). |
+| **BBF** | An Instagram profile dedicated to the offer (4-line bio, 5 to 7 highlights, daily story; anatomy in 06a §6A.3-6A.4). |
 | **CBO / Advantage** | Campaign-level budget / Meta's maximum automation. Complement BidCap and ABO. |
 | **Lateralização / oxigenação (Lateralization / oxygenation)** | Multiplying a winning creative (or offer) into variations, one variable at a time. |
 | **Meteórico (Meteoric)** | A lightning base-monetization campaign (group + time-limited offer); ROAS ~10, low ceiling. |

package/src/modules/lowticket/skills/wizz-lowticket-metodologia/knowledge/15-como-estender.md

@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ This isn't just legal caution. A well-structured 120-line shard is more useful t
 3. **Find the destination shard** via the INDEX. A new subject only becomes a new shard when it doesn't fit anywhere else.
 4. **Write it into the shard**, in your own wording, keeping the exact numbers.
 5. **Log the contradiction**, if the new material clashes with what's already written: it goes into [`pontos-em-aberto.md`](pontos-em-aberto.md), numbered, doesn't disappear, and isn't resolved on your own.
-6. **Log the risk**, if the tactic violates a platform term or consumer law: it goes into [`guardrails.md`](guardrails.md), which is always loaded, and gets an inline block line in the shard.
+6. **Log the risk**, if the tactic violates a platform term or consumer law: it goes into [`guardrails.md`](guardrails.md), which is always loaded, and gets an inline line in the shard pointing to its condition.
 7. **Measure the size.** A shard over ~200 lines gets expensive for rung 1 and needs a cut. That's how the shards split: 4 became `04`/`04a`/`04b`, 6 became `06`/`06a`/`06b`, 7 became `07`/`07a`, and 12 became `12`/`12a`/`12b`/`12c`. But line count is just a proxy — the real ceiling is size on disk (KB), not line count. Never cut across an internal routing table that points to sections on both sides of the split: that forces whoever arrives with a specific question to open two files, the opposite of what rung 1 asks for. In that case, prefer trimming internal repetition to splitting the arc in two.
 8. **Run verification before publishing.** This package runs an automated test that blocks verbatim quotes, third-party product/client names, and machine paths. Run it after editing a shard and before considering the task done — it catches in seconds what a quick re-read would miss.
 

package/src/modules/lowticket/skills/wizz-lowticket-metodologia/knowledge/18-copy-desejo-oferta.md

@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ The winner isn't more *creative*. It's more **specific**, more **visual**, and i
 
 > **Two important guardrails here.**
 > 1. **Specific is not invented.** The specificity ruler only applies to what the offer actually delivers — promising a specific destination that isn't fulfilled isn't just unethical, in practice it turns into refund requests and account-block risk.
-> 2. **Borrowed proof via a real person's name** **is not adopted in this project**: reason and alternative in [guardrails 44](guardrails.md). The concept of borrowed proof still holds — what's out is naming a third party without authorization.
+> 2. **Borrowed proof via a real person's name** **only with that person's authorization**: condition and alternative in [guardrails 44](guardrails.md). The concept of borrowed proof still holds; without authorization, the proof comes from a descriptive reference, an archetype, or your own proof.
 
 ### 18.3 Awareness levels — where she is when she finds you
 
@@ -214,7 +214,7 @@ The most actionable block in this shard. **Copy doesn't get fixed by guessing: b
 
 1. **What's the DESTINATION?** Not the category. The place she wants to be.
 2. **What's the MENTAL IMAGE?** In 5 words or fewer that she can actually **see**.
-3. **What's the REFERENCE?** Someone or something she already wants to be. *(See [guardrails 44](guardrails.md) before using a real person's name.)*
+3. **What's the REFERENCE?** Someone or something she already wants to be. *(A real person's name only with their authorization: [guardrails 44](guardrails.md).)*
 4. **Who's the VILLAIN?** The named culprit — the one that takes the blame off her.
 
 **Assembling it:**

package/src/modules/lowticket/skills/wizz-lowticket-metodologia/knowledge/INDEX.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
 > 26 shards · distillation of 71 processed sources · last revised 2026-09-15
 
 **Precedence:** generic skill against shard, **the shard wins**, and say so in the response.
-**Always together:** [`guardrails.md`](guardrails.md), with the logged tactics this base doesn't use.
+**Always together:** [`guardrails.md`](guardrails.md), the 8 source tactics with a condition of use.
 
 | Rung | Read | When |
 |---|---|---|
@@ -20,21 +20,21 @@ Don't open two shards to figure out which one it was. The 3rd column exists for
 | Funnel diagnosis, "where it's leaking," Utmify | [`02-diagnostico-funil.md`](02-diagnostico-funil.md) | The 5 transitions with benchmarks, what to attack first, real vs. fake ROI |
 | Campaign, bid, budget, scaling, cutting | [`03-campanha-bidcap.md`](03-campanha-bidcap.md) | CBO + Bid Cap + Advantage with no interests, bid and cut rules, analysis cadence |
 | **Bid cap, the 3x rule, when to pause** | **§3.7** of [`03`](03-campanha-bidcap.md) | The traffic manager's ruler: Bid Cap prerequisites and what's forbidden by default. §3.9 covers the scale reading, with [points 39 and 40](pontos-em-aberto.md) open |
-| **New account, multi-login, proxy, high CPM/CPC** | **§3.6** of [`03`](03-campanha-bidcap.md) | LALF, proxy, verification, manual columns. Has a blocked tactic: [guardrails 20](guardrails.md) |
+| **New account, multi-login, proxy, high CPM/CPC** | **§3.6** of [`03`](03-campanha-bidcap.md) | LALF, proxy, verification, manual columns. Has a tactic with a condition: [guardrails 20](guardrails.md) |
 | **Offer validated? Scaling in Portugal** | **§3.7** of [`03`](03-campanha-bidcap.md) | 3 days of stable ROI and 30-50 sales, budget at 2-3x the ticket, one account only. Scales +20/+30/+50% by ROAS (§3.2). PT exceptions: price with VAT in **§6.1** of [`06`](06-pagina-vendas.md), MB WAY with no bump and upsell in **§7.3** of [`07`](07-funil-upsell.md) |
 | Creative: structure, hook, production rules, angle testing | [`04-criativos.md`](04-criativos.md) | §4.1-4.5 and §4.12: structure, rules, triggers, platform, sub-niche, organic-to-paid validation |
-| **Video, image, or avatar made with AI** | [`04a-criativos-ia.md`](04a-criativos-ia.md) | §4.6, §4.9, §4.13: realism, image generation, talking avatar. Has a blocked tactic: [guardrails 21](guardrails.md) |
+| **Video, image, or avatar made with AI** | [`04a-criativos-ia.md`](04a-criativos-ia.md) | §4.6, §4.9, §4.13: realism, image generation, talking avatar. Has a tactic with a condition: [guardrails 21](guardrails.md) |
 | **VSL script, mini VSL, pt-BR→pt-PT transcreation, visual template, swipe file** | [`04b-criativos-formatos.md`](04b-criativos-formatos.md) | §4.7, §4.7-A, §4.8, §4.10, §4.11, §4.11-A, §4.11-B: VSL in 6 blocks, the 9 sales and play rate, pt-BR→pt-PT, 14 templates, the 155 pieces, 2026 organic formats |
-| **Writing a video creative script, briefing, variations, retention drop** | [`04c-criativos-roteiro.md`](04c-criativos-roteiro.md) | §4.16-4.24: the 3-question brief, block map by 15/30/60/90 s, rules per block, script table + spoken text, one axis per batch, retention diagnosis, checklist, modular production hook × body × CTA. Has a blocked tactic: [guardrails 49](guardrails.md) |
+| **Writing a video creative script, briefing, variations, retention drop** | [`04c-criativos-roteiro.md`](04c-criativos-roteiro.md) | §4.16-4.24: the 3-question brief, block map by 15/30/60/90 s, rules per block, script table + spoken text, one axis per batch, retention diagnosis, checklist, modular production hook × body × CTA. Has a tactic with a condition: [guardrails 49](guardrails.md) |
 | **See a creative that's already been made** | **§4.10** of [`04b`](04b-criativos-formatos.md) + [`CATALOGO`](../CATALOGO.md) | The 155 swipe pieces: composition, duration, screen, hook type |
 | **Why the copy isn't converting: awareness, sophistication, villain, proof** | [`18-copy-desejo-oferta.md`](18-copy-desejo-oferta.md) | The 5 awareness levels, the 5 sophistication stages, the named-villain formula, the proof ladder, the 7 copy blocks, value levers and offer sequencing (§18.9-18.11) |
-| **Writing or fixing a headline** | **§18.2 and §18.13** of [`18`](18-copy-desejo-oferta.md) | The 3 axes of specificity and the 4-question exercise. **The headline names the mechanism, the VSL explains it** ([point 46](pontos-em-aberto.md)). Has a blocked tactic: [guardrails 44](guardrails.md) |
+| **Writing or fixing a headline** | **§18.2 and §18.13** of [`18`](18-copy-desejo-oferta.md) | The 3 axes of specificity and the 4-question exercise. **The headline names the mechanism, the VSL explains it** ([point 46](pontos-em-aberto.md)). Has a tactic with a condition: [guardrails 44](guardrails.md) |
 | **Low CTR, bounces off the page, doesn't buy: which text block is broken** | **§18.12** of [`18`](18-copy-desejo-oferta.md) | Each metric points to one block. A different axis from section 2: section 2 finds the stage, 18.12 finds the sentence |
-| Offer, promise, price, guarantee, mechanism | [`05-oferta.md`](05-oferta.md) | Value equation, framework, price ranges and plans, guarantee, unique mechanism. Has a blocked tactic: [guardrails 48](guardrails.md) |
-| Sales page: structure and copy | [`06-pagina-vendas.md`](06-pagina-vendas.md) | 12-block anatomy, copy and layout rules. Has a blocked tactic: [guardrails 48](guardrails.md) |
+| Offer, promise, price, guarantee, mechanism | [`05-oferta.md`](05-oferta.md) | Value equation, framework, price ranges and plans, guarantee, unique mechanism. Has a tactic with a condition: [guardrails 48](guardrails.md) |
+| Sales page: structure and copy | [`06-pagina-vendas.md`](06-pagina-vendas.md) | 12-block anatomy, copy and layout rules. Has a tactic with a condition: [guardrails 48](guardrails.md) |
 | **Slow page, connect rate, pixel, LCP** | **§6.3-6.4** of [`06`](06-pagina-vendas.md) | Page engineering and the numeric performance targets |
-| **Pure low-ticket page (R$19.90-37)** | [`12c-anatomia-low-ticket.md`](12c-anatomia-low-ticket.md) | Fixed 11-block anatomy, checklist, and creative. See [point 25](pontos-em-aberto.md) before finalizing. Has blocked tactics: [guardrails 23 and 48](guardrails.md) |
-| Instagram: profile, bio, highlights, stories, UTM | [`06a-instagram.md`](06a-instagram.md) | Where the sales actually come from, profile anatomy, highlight per objection, the 20 min/day routine, UTM, BM plumbing, how many profiles, how to read the funnel (§6A.6-6A.9). Has a blocked tactic: [guardrails 32](guardrails.md) |
+| **Pure low-ticket page (R$19.90-37)** | [`12c-anatomia-low-ticket.md`](12c-anatomia-low-ticket.md) | Fixed 11-block anatomy, checklist, and creative. See [point 25](pontos-em-aberto.md) before finalizing. Has tactics with a condition: [guardrails 23 and 48](guardrails.md) |
+| Instagram: profile, bio, highlights, stories, UTM | [`06a-instagram.md`](06a-instagram.md) | Where the sales actually come from, profile anatomy, highlight per objection, the 20 min/day routine, UTM, BM plumbing, how many profiles, how to read the funnel (§6A.6-6A.9). Has a tactic with a condition: [guardrails 32](guardrails.md) |
 | **VSL player: custom player, replacing the YouTube embed** | [`06b-player-vsl.md`](06b-player-vsl.md) | §6B.1 and §6B.2: what the player needs to deliver and how. The sped-up progress bar is an assumed dark pattern: [point 33](pontos-em-aberto.md). Muted autoplay: [point 42](pontos-em-aberto.md) |
 | Upsell, downsell, payment recovery | [`07-funil-upsell.md`](07-funil-upsell.md) | Funnel structure, rules, recovery, pain and tone per page (§7.5-7.6), funnel copy rules, the post-checkout technical block, the master document (§7.7-7.9) |
 | **Price and conversion of each funnel stage** | **§7.4** of [`07`](07-funil-upsell.md) | Cascade U1 15-25%, U2 20-35%, downsell, total ticket 1.5-2.3x the front |
@@ -47,9 +47,9 @@ Don't open two shards to figure out which one it was. The 3rd column exists for
 | General audit of an entire operation | [`11-checklist-roi.md`](11-checklist-roi.md) | 43 items from the source, summarized into 6 sections: offer, Instagram, VSL, checkout, tracking, campaign |
 | Finding a new offer to model, mining the market | [`12-mineracao-ofertas.md`](12-mineracao-ofertas.md) | §12.1-12.4, §12.6, §12.9, §12.10: the price trick, the 0-10 rubric with a cutoff at 6, from data to MVP, 3 safety rules, the 5 E's, the operating flow and spreadsheet |
 | **Evaluating a mined offer, giving a verdict; viewing a competitor's offer** | [`12a-mineracao-veredito.md`](12a-mineracao-veredito.md) | §12.5 and §12.8: how to score, what disqualifies, a third-party creative pack read as market data |
-| **Producing the improved version (running the factory, the prompts)** | [`12b-fabrica-de-ofertas.md`](12b-fabrica-de-ofertas.md) | §12.7: the agent, the reverse-engineering variant, and the PDF structure. Has blocked tactics: [guardrails 45 and 23](guardrails.md) |
-| **Cloning a quiz funnel and taking it to another market** | **§12.11** of [`12b`](12b-fabrica-de-ofertas.md) | When to use a quiz, the BR → PT → ES/UK sequence, the 6-phase mirroring prompt (0 to 5), the file audit, what to swap out before publishing |
+| **Producing the improved version (running the factory, the prompts)** | [`12b-fabrica-de-ofertas.md`](12b-fabrica-de-ofertas.md) | §12.7: the agent, the reverse-engineering variant, and the PDF structure. Has tactics with a condition: [guardrails 45 and 23](guardrails.md) |
+| **Mirroring a quiz funnel as reference and taking it to another market** | **§12.11** of [`12b`](12b-fabrica-de-ofertas.md) | The mirror is study material; what goes live is your own funnel built from it ([point 65](pontos-em-aberto.md)). When to use a quiz, the BR → PT → ES/UK sequence, the 6-phase mirroring prompt (0 to 5), the file audit, what to build from scratch before publishing |
 | Market benchmark: VSL, retention, ROAS | [`13-benchmarks-vsl.md`](13-benchmarks-vsl.md) | The 13 numbers to know by heart and the 12 laws. This is market data: where it contradicts a shard, the shard wins |
 | An acronym or term you don't recognize | [`14-vocabulario.md`](14-vocabulario.md) | The methodology's vocabulary, translated |
-| A question the shard doesn't settle, an internal contradiction | [`pontos-em-aberto.md`](pontos-em-aberto.md) | The open points, the resolved ones, and the blocked ones. Ask instead of assuming |
+| A question the shard doesn't settle, an internal contradiction | [`pontos-em-aberto.md`](pontos-em-aberto.md) | The open points, the resolved ones, and the ones with a condition in `guardrails.md`. Ask instead of assuming |
 | "I processed new material," "update the methodology" | [`15-como-estender.md`](15-como-estender.md) | How to add knowledge without bloating the load or bringing in third-party text |

package/src/modules/lowticket/skills/wizz-lowticket-metodologia/knowledge/guardrails.md

@@ -1,103 +1,89 @@
-# Guardrails · what this project does not do
+# Guardrails · eight tactics with a condition
 
-> Loaded **always**, together with [`INDEX.md`](INDEX.md). These are eight tactics that the source material teaches and that this project logged but **did not adopt**, because they violate platform terms, consumer law, or a third party's rights.
+> Loaded **always**, together with [`INDEX.md`](INDEX.md). These are eight tactics that the source material teaches and that touch platform terms, consumer law, or a third party's rights. **The method uses them, within the condition.** Each section gives the tactic, how to do it, and the risk.
 >
-> **Until the operation's owner makes an explicit decision, no agent in this project uses any of them.** If a shard teaches the tactic, the block line is inline there too. Found material in favor without finding this file? Then the loading is wrong: guardrails load at rung 0.
+> **The operation owner's decision (2026-09-24):** all eight become method with a condition. The agent applies the tactic when the condition is met and, when it isn't, uses the alternative described in the same section. If a shard teaches the tactic, the pointer to the condition is inline there too. Found the material without finding this file? Then the loading is wrong: guardrails load at rung 0.
 
 ## 20 · Buying engagement (likes and comments)
 
 **The tactic.** One of the sources teaches buying likes and comments (an engagement-buying tool) to inflate the creative's engagement signal. It's logged in [`03-campanha-bidcap.md`](03-campanha-bidcap.md) §3.6.
 
-**Why not.** It's inauthentic engagement and violates Meta's Terms. The risk is a ban of the account and the BM — that is, losing exactly the asset that the LALF and the proxy from the same source exist to protect.
+**How to do it.** Allowed. Buy engagement to give the creative an initial signal, with the risk noted in the campaign plan (which account, which BM, how much was bought). Validating the creative organically (§4.12) is still the risk-free path and can run alongside.
 
-**What to do instead.** Validate the creative organically before uploading it (§4.12). Engagement from real people is the same signal, without the risk.
+**Risk.** Inauthentic engagement violates Meta's Terms. Meta may cut the page's reach or take down the account and the BM, exactly the asset the LALF and the proxy exist to protect. Prefer doing it outside the main account.
 
-## 21 · An AI avatar passing as a real person
+## 21 · AI avatar
 
 **The tactic.** Sections 4.6, 4.9, 4.13 and 4.14 of [`04a-criativos-ia.md`](04a-criativos-ia.md) teach how to create a realistic avatar and profile with AI.
 
-**Why not (without confirming first).** Meta and Instagram require an account representing a fictitious person to be identifiable as such, and the rule varies by format and by country. The source material doesn't address this. In Portugal and the EU the transparency bar is stricter (§4.8 already logs the same caution for promises).
+**How to do it.** Allowed **with a notice that it is AI**. The avatar itself is method; what you don't do is hide that it's AI. Use the platform's AI content label when there is one and make it clear in the piece or the profile that the person is generated. The lip-sync rule also applies: never reuse an avatar take whose mouth doesn't match the piece's audio 1:1.
 
-**What to do.** An AI avatar as a declared visual asset, yes. An AI avatar presented as a real person in an ad, **not without confirming the current policy of the target market**. The lip-sync rule also applies: never reuse an avatar take whose mouth doesn't match the piece's audio 1:1.
+**Risk.** Meta and Instagram require an account representing a fictitious person to be identifiable as such, and the rule varies by format and by country. In Portugal and the EU the transparency bar is stricter (§4.8 already logs the same caution for promises).
 
-## 23 · Synthetic testimonial
+## 23 · Testimonials
 
 **The tactic.** The offer-factory source (§12.7 in [`12b-fabrica-de-ofertas.md`](12b-fabrica-de-ofertas.md)) suggests filling the page's social proof with an AI-generated face plus a fictional name and city.
 
-**Why not.** It's a fabricated testimonial. It violates Meta's ad policy and constitutes deceptive advertising (CDC in Brazil; in the EU the bar is even stricter, and §4.8 already requires framing every testimonial as an individual result). The risk isn't only legal: fake social proof that gets discovered destroys the whole offer.
+**How to do it.** Testimonials **only from real customers**. The technique of structuring and scripting a testimonial still holds: ask for video or audio feedback, organize before/after, highlight the result ([`06a-instagram.md`](06a-instagram.md) §6A.4). Inventing a customer, face, name, or city does not. Without a customer yet, the page goes out without a testimonial block. The same condition applies to any third-party proof (a study, an institution, a specialist, a results print): only if it really exists. In a creative script with no proof, the answer is a live demonstration of the product ([`04c`](04c-criativos-roteiro.md) §4.16).
 
-**What to do instead.** The methodology already gives the alternative: [`06a-instagram.md`](06a-instagram.md) §6A.4 covers highlighting real customer feedback, and the source suggests recording video or audio feedback when a real customer exists. Without a customer yet, the page goes out without a testimonial block, not with an invented one.
+**Risk.** A fabricated testimonial violates Meta's ad policy and constitutes deceptive advertising (CDC in Brazil; in the EU the bar is stricter, and §4.8 requires framing every testimonial as an individual result). Fake social proof that gets discovered destroys the whole offer.
 
-**Same block, wider than the testimonial.** Any invented third-party proof falls under this entry: a study, an institution, a specialist, a results print. In a creative script with no proof, the answer is a live demonstration of the product ([`04c`](04c-criativos-roteiro.md) §4.16), not fiction.
+## 32 · A third party's document to verify the profile
 
-## 32 · A third party's ID document to verify the profile
+**The tactic.** One of the sources teaches passing Instagram's profile verification using "a photo that matches the document," with the example of putting a woman on the profile and sending her mother's document. The category part of the same source is logged in [`06a-instagram.md`](06a-instagram.md).
 
-**The tactic.** The `Guia Prático para Escalar Mentoria` teaches passing Instagram's profile verification using "a photo that matches the document," and gives the literal example of putting a woman on the profile and sending her mother's document. The legitimate part of the same source is logged in [`06a-instagram.md`](06a-instagram.md).
+**How to do it.** Allowed **with the document owner's authorization**. The person whose document goes to verification knows, agrees, and is recorded as part of the business. Add the **"Community"** category (the easiest to verify) and a photo consistent with the document submitted. The reported CPA and CPM gains come from the category and the consistency.
 
-**Why not.** It's authenticating an account to the platform using someone else's identity. Meta requires the document to match whoever is actually behind the account; besides that, the distance between "a photo that matches the document" and impersonation is short, and the document belongs to someone who isn't part of the business. The risk falls exactly on the asset the source wants to protect: the profile and the BM.
-
-**What to do instead.** The rest of the class still holds and is enough on its own: the **"Community"** category (the easiest to verify) and a photo consistent with the document **of the actual person** who runs the account. The reported CPA and CPM gains come from the category and the consistency, not from whose document is on file.
+**Risk.** Meta expects the document to match whoever answers for the account; if the platform challenges it, the profile and the BM are tied to that person's identity. Without authorization, it's use of someone else's identity and doesn't go in.
 
 ## 44 · A real person's name as borrowed proof
 
-**The tactic.** The "Do desejo à oferta" source (shard [`18`](18-copy-desejo-oferta.md) §18.2 and §18.13) shows that a specific headline beats a generic one because it carries **borrowed proof**: "someone she already admires and wants to be." The deck's literal example is a weight-loss headline that **names a Brazilian influencer**, with no connection to the offer.
-
-**Why not.** Naming a real person in an ad without authorization is unauthorized use of name and image: in Brazil it falls under article 20 of the Civil Code and the CDC (advertising that implies a nonexistent endorsement); in the EU the bar is even stricter. Meta's ad policy also forbids implying a public figure's endorsement without authorization, and the penalty lands on the account and the BM. The risk is double: a notice from the rights holder, and disapproval/ban — arriving exactly when the creative starts to scale.
+**The tactic.** The "desire to offer" source (shard [`18`](18-copy-desejo-oferta.md) §18.2 and §18.13) shows that a specific headline beats a generic one because it carries **borrowed proof**: "someone she already admires and wants to be." The deck's literal example is a weight-loss headline that names a Brazilian influencer.
 
-**What to do instead.** Borrowed proof still holds; what changes is where it comes from:
+**How to do it.** A real person's name **only with that person's authorization** (in writing: an advertising contract, a partnership, or a co-production, section 9). Without authorization, borrowed proof comes from somewhere else:
 
-- **Descriptive reference, not a name:** "the body of someone who's trained for 10 years," "the routine of someone who works 12h a day." Delivers the same mental image without naming anyone.
-- **Archetype or role:** "a mother of two who fit into her old clothes again": that's sophistication stage 5 (§18.4), which sells identity, and doesn't depend on a third party.
+- **Descriptive reference, not a name:** "the body of someone who's trained for 10 years," "the routine of someone who works 12h a day."
+- **Archetype or role:** "a mother of two who fit into her old clothes again," sophistication stage 5 (§18.4).
 - **Your own proof:** the rungs from §18.7 that the operation actually has: a specific number, a demonstration, volume.
-- **A third party's name only with written authorization** (an advertising contract or a co-production partnership, section 9).
-
-The guardrail the deck itself already states still holds on top of this: *"specific isn't invented: if you don't deliver, specific turns into refunds and account bans."*
-
-**Decided on 2026-09-09 (the operation owner's decision): stays blocked.** The only open door is contractual: an influencer who is a **co-producer** of the offer (section 9, with a contract) can be named, because then there's authorization and a real relationship to the product. Outside of that, no third-party name goes into an ad.
-
-> The trade-off is an honest one: you lose some punch by dropping the real name. You get it back with **identity** language ("for the mother of 2 who's already tried everything"), which is sophistication stage 5 in [`18`](18-copy-desejo-oferta.md) §18.4. The legal path is also the more sophisticated one.
-
-## 45 · A third party's TikTok video downloaded as your own creative
 
-**The tactic.** The `Guia Prático de Ferramentas para Criação de Criativos e Áudios` (logged in [`04a-criativos-ia.md`](04a-criativos-ia.md) §4.15) teaches using a browser with a built-in downloader to grab TikTok videos **without the watermark** and use them as B-roll and illustration in the creative. The same class suggests using footage of a person from another country "to test audience acceptance" before producing for the local market, and presents this as a way to reduce audit risk on Meta Ads.
+The deck's own guardrail still holds on top of this: *"specific isn't invented: if you don't deliver, specific turns into refunds and account bans."*
 
-**Why not.** Three problems at once. **Copyright and image rights:** the video is someone else's work and the person filmed didn't authorize appearing in an ad; removing the watermark is precisely erasing attribution. **Platform terms:** TikTok's Terms forbid extracting content for commercial use outside the platform, and Meta's policy requires usage rights over all ad material. **Wrong motivation:** the "avoid the audit" argument is detection evasion, not compliance: if a tactic needs to go unseen to work, it's already the problem.
+**Risk.** Without authorization it's unauthorized use of name and image (article 20 of the Civil Code and the CDC in Brazil; in the EU the bar is stricter), and Meta forbids implying a public figure's endorsement without authorization. The risk is double: a notice from the rights holder, and disapproval or a ban, arriving exactly when the creative scales.
 
-**What to do instead.** The useful part of the class survives intact:
+## 45 · A third party's TikTok video
 
-- **TikTok as a reference, not as stock footage.** Watching what's trending, classifying the format (§4.11-B), and **remaking it** with your own material is legitimate modeling — it's what the methodology already instructs in 4.12 and 12.
-- **Licensed stock libraries** for B-roll and illustration: Pexels and equivalents, which the same class cites and which exist for exactly this.
-- **Your own or generated material**, via the [`04a`](04a-criativos-ia.md) §4.6, §4.9, §4.13, and §4.14 stack, respecting [guardrails 21](guardrails.md) when it involves an avatar.
-- **Test acceptance** with your own creative organically (§4.12), which is the filter the methodology already adopted and doesn't depend on anyone else's material.
+**The tactic.** One of the creative-tools sources (logged in [`04a-criativos-ia.md`](04a-criativos-ia.md) §4.15) teaches downloading TikTok videos without the watermark to use as B-roll, and using footage of a person from another country to test audience acceptance.
 
-**Decided on 2026-09-09 (the operation owner's decision): stays blocked, no exceptions.** The cost of complying is close to zero: the [`04a`](04a-criativos-ia.md) §4.14 pipeline (one scene, several lines) already solves cheap B-roll with your own material, and licensed libraries cover the rest. The only use case that's actually left out is testing a foreign audience's reaction for free, and the substitute is looking instead of extracting: the 155-piece swipe file ([`04b`](04b-criativos-formatos.md) §4.10) and the Ad Library.
+**How to do it.** A third party's video **only as a reference for recording your own**: model the video that went viral. Study format, pace, hook, and structure (§4.11-B), and record your own on the same skeleton. Don't upload the other person's video, not even as B-roll. For the rest:
 
-## 48 · A struck-through reference price that was never actually charged
+- **Licensed stock libraries** for B-roll and illustration: Pexels and equivalents.
+- **Your own or generated material**, via the [`04a`](04a-criativos-ia.md) §4.6, §4.9, §4.13, and §4.14 stack (the one-scene, several-lines pipeline solves cheap B-roll), with the condition of [guardrails 21](guardrails.md) when it involves an avatar.
+- **Test acceptance** with your own creative organically (§4.12), and study a foreign audience by looking: the 155-piece swipe file ([`04b`](04b-criativos-formatos.md) §4.10) and the Ad Library.
 
-**The tactic.** The source page anatomy (shard [`12c`](12c-anatomia-low-ticket.md) block 06, and §6.1 of [`06-pagina-vendas.md`](06-pagina-vendas.md)) says to show "full value struck through, entry price highlighted." In low-ticket offer practice, that full value is the **sum of the value assigned to the materials**, not a price anyone ever actually paid.
+**Risk.** Uploading someone else's video infringes copyright and image rights, TikTok's Terms (extraction for commercial use), and Meta's requirement of usage rights over all ad material.
 
-**Why not (in the European market).** The Omnibus Directive (EU 2019/2161, in force in Portugal) requires that any reference price advertised in a reduction be **the lowest price charged in the previous 30 days**. Adding up items to 134€ and striking through that number presents, as a previous price, an amount that was never charged. It has already cost major retailers settlements worth tens of millions, and in Portugal it falls under ASAE's jurisdiction and DL 57/2008.
+## 48 · A struck-through reference price
 
-**What to do instead.** Value anchoring is still allowed, as long as it doesn't disguise itself as a discount: say **"134€ em materiais · hoje 14,90€,"** with the item-by-item sum visible in the value block, and **never strike through the number**. The anchoring effect is preserved, the claim is verifiable, and the page doesn't promise a discount that never existed. Applied on a client's PT page in 2026-09-05.
+**The tactic.** The source page anatomy (shard [`12c`](12c-anatomia-low-ticket.md) block 06, and §6.1 of [`06-pagina-vendas.md`](06-pagina-vendas.md)) says to show "full value struck through, entry price highlighted." In low-ticket practice, that full value is usually the sum of the value assigned to the materials.
 
-> 🔢 **This guardrail was number 33 until 2026-09-09.** It was opened on 2026-09-05 reusing a number that already belonged to the player's progress bar in [`pontos-em-aberto.md`](pontos-em-aberto.md), and the two topics ended up sharing the same identifier. Renumbered to 48, the first free one. Anyone who finds "guardrail 33" in older material is looking at this one.
+**How to do it.** A struck-through price **only if it was actually charged** (in the EU, the lowest price charged in the previous 30 days). If it was never charged, anchor by value without striking through: **"134€ em materiais · hoje 14,90€,"** with the item-by-item sum visible in the value block. The anchoring effect is preserved and the claim is verifiable. Applied on a client's PT page on 2026-09-05.
 
-## 49 · A hook that asserts a personal attribute of the viewer
+**Risk.** Striking through a price that was never charged is a fake discount: the CDC in Brazil; in Portugal, the European price indication directive (Omnibus, EU 2019/2161), enforced by ASAE under DL 57/2008.
 
-**The tactic.** Section 4.5 of [`04-criativos.md`](04-criativos.md) teaches naming the audience in the first second, with a shopkeeper as the example. The lever is legitimate; the risk is its natural extension to a personal trait: health, weight, body, debt, financial situation, age, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, stated as a fact about whoever is watching ("você que está acima do peso", "você que está endividado").
+> 🔢 **This guardrail was number 33 until 2026-09-09.** It was opened on 2026-09-05 reusing a number that already belonged to the player's progress bar in [`pontos-em-aberto.md`](pontos-em-aberto.md). Renumbered to 48, the first free one. Anyone who finds "guardrail 33" in older material is looking at this one.
 
-**Why not.** Meta's personal attributes policy rejects ad copy that asserts or implies the viewer has one of those traits, and repeated rejections weigh on the ad account and the BM. Besides the rule, an accusing second person repels exactly the audience it wants to filter.
+## 49 · A hook with a personal attribute
 
-**Where the line is.** Occupation and role pass: "você que é lojista", "pra quem vende no Instagram" describe what the person does, not what they are. A sensitive trait in the second person doesn't.
+**The tactic.** Section 4.5 of [`04-criativos.md`](04-criativos.md) teaches naming the audience in the first second, with a shopkeeper as the example. The natural extension is naming a personal trait of the viewer.
 
-**What to do instead.**
+**How to do it.** A writing rule for the hook:
 
-- **Third person or open question:** "quem já tentou de tudo pra perder a barriga costuma…", "por que a dieta para de funcionar depois dos 40?".
-- **Describe the scene, not the person:** the pain scene of [`04c`](04c-criativos-roteiro.md) §4.19 does the identification without labeling anyone.
-- **Identity by role:** sophistication stage 5 of [`18`](18-copy-desejo-oferta.md) §18.4 ("pra mãe de dois…") speaks of a situation the viewer recognizes, not a trait imposed on them.
+- **Passes:** occupation or role ("você que é lojista", "pra quem vende no Instagram") and result or goal ("um jeito de perder 5 kg sem academia", "pra quem quer sair das dívidas").
+- **Fails:** a sensitive trait asserted in the second person ("você que está acima do peso", "você que está endividado"). Health, weight, body, debt, financial situation, age, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity.
+- **Alternatives when the trait is the topic:** third person or an open question ("por que a dieta para de funcionar depois dos 40?"), the pain scene of [`04c`](04c-criativos-roteiro.md) §4.19, identity by role from [`18`](18-copy-desejo-oferta.md) §18.4 ("pra mãe de dois…").
 
-**Logged on 2026-09-15, not decided by the operation owner.** Blocked by default like the others; the rest of §4.5 still stands.
+**Risk.** Meta's personal attributes policy rejects copy that asserts or implies the viewer has one of those traits, and repeated rejections weigh on the account and the BM.
 
 ---
 
-**General rule when a new risky tactic shows up.** Don't stay silent and don't adopt it on your own: log it in [`pontos-em-aberto.md`](pontos-em-aberto.md), bring it here if it's a legal or ban risk, and notify the operation's owner before proceeding.
+**General rule when a new risky tactic shows up.** Don't stay silent and don't adopt it on your own: log it in [`pontos-em-aberto.md`](pontos-em-aberto.md), bring it here if it's a legal or ban risk, and notify the operation's owner to decide the condition.

package/src/modules/lowticket/skills/wizz-lowticket-metodologia/knowledge/pontos-em-aberto.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Open points — Low Ticket Methodology
 
-Contradictions and gaps found while distilling this methodology, pulled into this separate file to keep the shards lean. **Confirm with the operation's owner, or with the source, before deciding on any of these.** Points 20, 21, 23, 32, 44, 45, 48, and 49 are legal or ban risks: they live in [`guardrails.md`](guardrails.md), which is always loaded. The shards in `knowledge/` reference this file by point number (e.g., "See Open point 20").
+Contradictions and gaps found while distilling this methodology, pulled into this separate file to keep the shards lean. **Confirm with the operation's owner, or with the source, before deciding on any of these.** Points 20, 21, 23, 32, 44, 45, 48, and 49 have a condition of use in [`guardrails.md`](guardrails.md), which is always loaded. The shards in `knowledge/` reference this file by point number (e.g., "See Open point 20").
 
 ---
 
@@ -23,11 +23,11 @@ Contradictions and gaps found while distilling this methodology, pulled into thi
 17. **"More profitable": training an expert, or closing a co-production deal?** The Instagram source says training an expert is the most profitable path (no prior audience, no bargaining); it also says co-production is the most profitable and sustainable model. The two pieces of material compare against different baselines: co-production wins **against running solo**, and training wins **against co-production**, because it doesn't split the profit. Reading adopted in section 9.2: train > partner > solo, with the partnership winning on execution speed. Neither source compares all three side by side, so confirm with the source.
 18. ~~**VSL length: 90s-2min or 7-9 minutes?**~~ **RULE ADOPTED (2026-08-28, by reading the material; not confirmed with the source.)** What decides it is **what the VSL needs to prove**, not the ticket alone. A product that proves itself on screen (showrun, a recording opening the product from the inside, 11.3): **90s to 2min**. An offer that needs to build a mechanism and authority before reaching the price: **7 to 9 min**, in the 6-block structure (4.7). The 6-block structure holds in both cases: it changes the time per block, not the order or function. **When in doubt, start short:** stretching a short VSL that retained is cheaper than salvaging a long one nobody watched.
 19. **Hook: 3 or 5 seconds?** Section 4.1 and the newer source both say **3 seconds**; section 11.6 (the ROI checklist) says **5 seconds**. In practice: write for 3, tolerate up to 5. Not a real operational conflict, but the numbers diverge in the material.
-20. **Buying engagement (an engagement-buying tool) — logged, not adopted.** Full text, reason, and alternative in [`guardrails.md`](guardrails.md#20--compra-de-engajamento-curtidas-e-comentários). **Decide with the operation's owner whether to adopt it.**
-21. **Realistic AI profile and platform policy.** Full text, reason, and alternative in [`guardrails.md`](guardrails.md#21--avatar-de-ia-passando-por-pessoa-real). **Confirm the target market's policy before using an AI avatar as a real person.**
+20. ~~**Buying engagement (an engagement-buying tool)**~~ **RULE ADOPTED (2026-09-24, the operation owner's decision): allowed with a condition.** Buying engagement is allowed, with the risk noted in the plan (Meta may cut reach or take down the account). Condition in [`guardrails.md` 20](guardrails.md#20--buying-engagement-likes-and-comments).
+21. ~~**Realistic AI profile and platform policy**~~ **RULE ADOPTED (2026-09-24, the operation owner's decision): allowed with a condition.** An AI avatar is allowed with a notice that it is AI; what you don't do is hide that it's AI. Condition in [`guardrails.md` 21](guardrails.md#21--ai-avatar).
 
 22. **Hook: name the audience or ask a question?** Section 4.5 says to name the audience in the first second ("você que é lojista..."), and the source treats this as the identification-and-filter lever. But the 155-piece swipe file (4.10) does this in only **3 of 86** creatives with speech: what dominates is the **question** (29%) and **curiosity/secret** (19%). Likely reading: both filter, but through different paths — naming filters by identity ("I'm a shopkeeper"), asking filters by desire ("I want that"). The question may win on an entertainment platform (the Instagram from 4.4, where sounding salesy too soon kills reach) and naming may win on a narrow sub-niche offer. **There's no performance data in the swipe file to decide this** — confirm with the source, and test both angles in the same ad set when in doubt.
-23. **Synthetic testimonial (offer-factory class) — logged, not adopted.** Full text, reason, and alternative in [`guardrails.md`](guardrails.md#23--depoimento-sintético). **Until the operation's owner makes an explicit decision, nothing here uses this tactic.**
+23. ~~**Synthetic testimonial (offer-factory class)**~~ **RULE ADOPTED (2026-09-24, the operation owner's decision): allowed with a condition.** Testimonials only from real customers; testimonial structure and scripting still hold, inventing a customer does not. Condition in [`guardrails.md` 23](guardrails.md#23--testimonials).
 24. ~~**Two ticket-repositioning tables.**~~ **RULE ADOPTED (2026-08-28, by reading the material; not confirmed with the source.)** Section 12.5 itself declares it a "working hypothesis, not a mechanical rule," and that settles it: **the Factory's fixed table (12.7) when the agent runs solo** and needs a closed number; **12.5's ranges when you're deciding by hand.** Above an origin price of R$97 the Factory's table is out of scope: its R$37 cap is the pure-low-ticket price floor, not a repositioning rule. For an origin of R$297, the ruler is 12.5's (~R$97), and sending R$37 there leaves money on the table.
 
 25. ~~**ONE price only, or two plans?**~~ **RULE ADOPTED (2026-08-28, by reading the material; not confirmed with the source.)** The axis is the **ticket**, and the cutoff is the Factory's own cap: **up to R$37, ONE price** (1 entry, 1 bump, 1 upsell); **from R$47 up, two plans** (basic decoy, premium sale) with a pop-up on the basic plan's click. The contradiction disappears once you look at each source's stated scope: 12.7-A is, by its own header, the anatomy for a **pure low-ticket page (R$19.90-37)**; the 5.3 example is Portugal at $790 and $1490, a number from an auto-generated transcript, unverified (currency and decimal places unreliable, see [`05`](05-oferta.md)), i.e. a different bracket with no reference value. That leaves 11.3, which talks about generic "low ticket" and mandates two plans: since "low ticket" in that material goes up to R$97, it falls above the cutoff and stops conflicting. The three-option example (market sample, 6.1) isn't a ruler. **Underlying reason:** below R$40 it's an impulse purchase and a second option only offers the possibility of not buying; above that, the decoy plan pays for itself.
@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ Contradictions and gaps found while distilling this methodology, pulled into thi
 30. **Which model runs the Factory: Opus or Pro?** The recorded source (12.7) says "model: Opus" and advises against the top-tier, most expensive model because it doesn't pay off for this task. The same source's printed guide (12.7-A) lists only "a paid Claude subscription, Pro is enough" as a requirement. Not actually a conflict: "Pro" is the plan and "Opus" is the model, and the Pro plan grants access to strong models. Adopted reading: **a paid plan is enough; pick the strongest model the plan allows, and don't pay for Fable for this.** Logged because read literally they look like different instructions.
 31. **How many creatives per ad set?** The Factory's checklist (12.7-A) asks for "at least 6 creatives in the same ad set, ideally 10." Section 4.12.3 sets "one ad set per angle, up to 5 creatives inside." The two numbers measure different things (one is the ads-manager ad set, the other is the creative set per test angle), but in practice they collide if each angle becomes one ad set: 5 is less than the minimum of 6. Likely reading: 5 per angle is the **production** ruler and 6 to 10 is the **ads-manager delivery** ruler, which resolves by putting more than one angle in the same ad set or filling out with variations. **Confirm before setting up the campaign**, if the operation is designed with 5 per angle.
 
-32. **A third party's ID document to verify the profile — logged, not adopted.** A source on mentorship growth teaches, to pass Instagram's profile verification, using "a photo that matches the document" and gives the literal example of putting one person on the profile and sending a family member's document. **Ban and impersonation risk: lives in [`guardrails.md`](guardrails.md#32--documento-de-identidade-de-terceiro-para-verificar-o-perfil).** The legitimate part of the same source (the "Community" category is the easiest to verify, a photo consistent with the document **of the actual person**) was adopted and is in 6-A.
+32. ~~**A third party's ID document to verify the profile**~~ **RULE ADOPTED (2026-09-24, the operation owner's decision): allowed with a condition.** A third party's document in verification only with the document owner's authorization; the "Community" category stays adopted in 6-A. Condition in [`guardrails.md` 32](guardrails.md#32--a-third-partys-document-to-verify-the-profile).
 
 33. ~~**Progress bar sped up on purpose in the VSL player.**~~ **RULE ADOPTED (2026-09-04, the operation owner's decision.)** The VSL player doesn't reflect the video's real time: the bar advances faster (a factor of 1.05 to 1.25), with 200-800ms plateaus, and only lines up with real time near 90% of the video. **The bar stays as is, and the rule stands in full.** Reason for the decision: it's standard VSL-player behavior in the niche, doesn't violate any platform term, and doesn't expose the account or the BM. Logged as an **assumed** dark pattern, not as a banned tactic. If the operation ever moves into a market with a stricter consumer-practices bar, this is the first item to revisit. See 6B.1.
 
@@ -66,9 +66,9 @@ Contradictions and gaps found while distilling this methodology, pulled into thi
 
 43. **A 13-question FAQ against shard 12c's 5.** Block 09 of [`12c`](12c-anatomia-low-ticket.md)'s anatomy asks for 5 questions, covering the objections from the sheet plus refund and access. The copy for a live offer has 13, and all 13 stayed on the page, in a collapsed accordion, because that copy is canonical and each answer is short. **This wasn't decided by rule, it was decided by omission:** ask the operation's owner whether to cut it down to 5. Opened 2026-09-05.
 
-44. **A real person's name as borrowed proof — logged, blocked.** A source on the journey from desire to offer uses, as an example of a winning headline, a promise that names an influencer with no connection to the offer. **Image-rights, CDC, and Meta-policy risk: lives in [`guardrails.md`](guardrails.md#44--nome-de-pessoa-real-como-prova-emprestada).** **DECIDED (2026-09-09, the operation owner's decision): stays blocked.** The concept of borrowed proof (§18.2) was adopted; what was left out is naming a third party without written authorization. **The exception is contractual:** an influencer who is a co-producer of the offer (section 9) can be named.
+44. ~~**A real person's name as borrowed proof**~~ **RULE ADOPTED (2026-09-24, the operation owner's decision): allowed with a condition.** A real person's name only with that person's authorization; without it, a descriptive reference, an archetype, or your own proof (§18.2). Condition in [`guardrails.md` 44](guardrails.md#44--a-real-persons-name-as-borrowed-proof).
 
-45. **A third party's TikTok video as your own creative — logged, blocked.** A source on creative and audio production tools teaches downloading a TikTok video with no watermark to use as B-roll, and using footage of a person from another country to "test acceptance." **Copyright, image-rights, and platform-terms risk: lives in [`guardrails.md`](guardrails.md#45--vídeo-de-terceiro-baixado-do-tiktok-como-criativo-próprio).** **DECIDED (2026-09-09, the operation owner's decision): stays blocked, no exceptions.** The rest of the material (licensed stock libraries, the free voice alternative, TikTok as a format reference) was adopted and is in 4.15.
+45. ~~**A third party's TikTok video as your own creative**~~ **RULE ADOPTED (2026-09-24, the operation owner's decision): allowed with a condition.** A third party's video only as a reference for recording your own (model the format, pace, and hook of what went viral); the other person's video is not uploaded. Condition in [`guardrails.md` 45](guardrails.md#45--a-third-partys-tiktok-video).
 
 46. ~~**Does the headline carry the mechanism, or just the promise?**~~ **RULE ADOPTED (2026-09-09, the operation owner's decision.)** The conflict was one of vocabulary. Section 5.5 forbids **explaining** the mechanism in the headline ("the mechanism's *explanation* stays in the VSL"); §18.13 requires it to be **named**. Naming takes 3 words, explaining takes a whole VSL: they're different operations, and both lines stand.  **The headline names it, the VSL explains it.**
 
@@ -94,9 +94,9 @@ Contradictions and gaps found while distilling this methodology, pulled into thi
 
     **The list of 7 is the working list** (it's the one that says where the 80% of the result is: blocks 1 and 4), and **the list of 6 remains valid as a quick VSL check.** What the 6-block list hides is precisely the `Thesis` block, the mechanism, which §18.8 flags as one of the two that sell the most. Anyone building a VSL off the 6-block list has to make sure the thesis is in there, named or not.
 
-48. **A struck-through reference price that was never charged — logged, blocked.** The page anatomy (12c block 06 and §6.1) says to show "full value struck through, entry price highlighted," but in low ticket that full value is the **sum of the value assigned to the materials**, not a price anyone ever paid. **Omnibus Directive and DL 57/2008 risk: lives in [`guardrails.md`](guardrails.md#48--preço-de-referência-riscado-que-nunca-foi-cobrado).** Value anchoring is still allowed, as long as it doesn't disguise itself as a discount and doesn't strike through the number.
+48. ~~**A struck-through reference price that was never charged**~~ **RULE ADOPTED (2026-09-24, the operation owner's decision): allowed with a condition.** A struck-through price only if it was actually charged; otherwise, anchor by value without striking through (CDC in Brazil, the European price indication directive in Portugal). It was number 33 until 2026-09-09. Condition in [`guardrails.md` 48](guardrails.md#48--a-struck-through-reference-price).
 
-49. **A hook that asserts a personal attribute of the viewer — logged, blocked.** Section 4.5 teaches naming the audience in the first second; extended to a sensitive trait (weight, health, debt) stated in the second person, it falls under Meta's personal attributes policy. **Lives in [`guardrails.md`](guardrails.md).** Occupation and role still pass ("você que é lojista"); the alternative is third person, an open question, or the pain scene of §4.19.
+49. ~~**A hook that asserts a personal attribute of the viewer**~~ **RULE ADOPTED (2026-09-24, the operation owner's decision): allowed with a condition.** Writing rule: occupation, role, result, or goal pass ("pra quem quer sair das dívidas"); a sensitive trait asserted in the second person fails, under Meta's personal attributes policy. Condition in [`guardrails.md` 49](guardrails.md#49--a-hook-with-a-personal-attribute).
 
 50. **Creative length: 15-30 s or 40-60 s?** The script material processed into [`04c`](04c-criativos-roteiro.md) §4.18 maps blocks for 15, 30, 60 and 90 s and treats 15-30 s as the Reels/TikTok norm. Section 4.2 says the ideal is **40 to 60 s** and that Facebook's 15 s recommendation is ineffective; the swipe file (§4.10) puts 36% of the pieces at 20-40 s. **Provisional reading, not decided:** 40-60 s stays the default for cold traffic (the shard wins); the 15 and 30 s columns are used for cut-downs of a winning creative and tested with the length axis of §4.21. Confirm with the operation owner before producing a batch that is all short.
 
@@ -108,32 +108,32 @@ Contradictions and gaps found while distilling this methodology, pulled into thi
 
 54. ~~**Vertical scale: a 30%-a-day ceiling, or +50%/+20% by ROAS?**~~ **RULE ADOPTED (2026-09-24, decision of the operation's owner): +50% is allowed.** §3.2 of [`03`](03-campanha-bidcap.md) had a fixed +30%-a-day ceiling; newer source material says to raise 50% with ROAS ≥ 2.5 and 20% with ROAS < 2.0. **Landed as:** ROAS ≥ 2.5 → +50% · 2.0 to 2.5 → +30% (the source doesn't address this band; the old ceiling stayed) · < 2.0 → +20%. Applies to every market, not just Portugal. The 3.7 lever order (Bid Cap first) still governs on top of this.
 
-55. ~~**Technically cloning a third party's funnel.**~~ **RULE ADOPTED (2026-09-24, decision of the operation's owner): cleared, no guardrail.** A source on cloning and scaling quiz funnels teaches mirroring another operation's quiz funnel and relaunching it in another market. It was briefly logged as guardrail 55 and removed the same day. **Landed as:** the **functional structure** gets cloned; the original's copy, images, logos, brand, legal text, pixels and payment IDs come out before publishing (the source's own rule). Method in [`12b`](12b-fabrica-de-ofertas.md) §12.11. The "never clone" rule in 12a still holds for copy, brand and deliverable.
+55. ~~**Technically cloning a third party's funnel.**~~ **RULE ADOPTED (2026-09-24, the operation owner's decision; reread the same day in [point 65](pontos-em-aberto.md)).** A source on quiz funnels teaches mirroring another operation's quiz funnel and relaunching it in another market. It was briefly logged as guardrail 55 and removed the same day. **Landed as:** mirror to study, rebuild to publish. The downloaded mirror is reference (structure, flow, question logic); what goes live is your own funnel, with your own code, copy, images and brand, and nothing from the original. Method in [`12b`](12b-fabrica-de-ofertas.md) §12.11. The "never clone, always rebuild" rule in 12a holds with no exception.
 
-56. **Budget scaling in fixed 30% steps against the ROAS-based scale from point 54.** [`12-mineracao-ofertas.md`](12-mineracao-ofertas.md) §12.3 and the 5 E's table, plus [`12c`](12c-anatomia-low-ticket.md) and [`13`](13-benchmarks-vsl.md) (+20-30%/day), still describe vertical scaling in fixed 30% steps. [Point 54](pontos-em-aberto.md) (2026-09-24) already resolved this for [`03`](03-campanha-bidcap.md) §3.2 and says it "applies to every market." The open question: **does point 54 also apply to a freshly validated MVP from the offer radar**, or does the fixed 30% remain the mining funnel's own ruler while the offer still has no history to calculate ROAS? Logged 2026-09-24. → the operation owner's decision.
+56. ~~**Budget scaling in fixed 30% steps against the ROAS-based scale from point 54.**~~ **RULE ADOPTED (2026-09-24, the operation owner's decision).** [`12-mineracao-ofertas.md`](12-mineracao-ofertas.md) §12.3, the 5 E table and [`12c`](12c-anatomia-low-ticket.md) described vertical scale in fixed 30% steps. **Landed as:** the ROAS-based scale of [point 54](pontos-em-aberto.md) also applies to an offer freshly validated by the Radar, after the 3 validation days; before validation, no scaling. Shards 12 and 12c now say this; the project's ruler is [`03`](03-campanha-bidcap.md) §3.2.
 
-57. **Bid cap after 3 days in the green: lower it or raise it?** [`11`](11-checklist-roi.md) §11.6 says to **lower** the bid cap and raise the budget after 3 days of positive ROI. [`03`](03-campanha-bidcap.md) §3.7 sets **raising** the Bid Cap as the first scaling lever, and §3.2 explicitly says **not to lower** the Bid Cap while performance is strong. The two rulers in `03` already agree with each other; the one that diverges is `11`. Logged 2026-09-24. → the operation owner's decision.
+57. ~~**Bid cap after 3 days in the green: lower it or raise it?**~~ **RULE ADOPTED (2026-09-24, the operation owner's decision).** [`11`](11-checklist-roi.md) §11.6 said to lower the bid cap after 3 days of positive ROI; [`03`](03-campanha-bidcap.md) §3.2 and §3.7 say not to lower it and to raise the Bid Cap as the first lever. **Landed as:** the bid cap is not lowered while performance is high; `03` wins. §11.6 was corrected.
 
-58. **Anchor for the initial bid cap: ticket, break-even, or the full ticket?** Three versions coexist: ticket × 1.5 ([`03`](03-campanha-bidcap.md) §3.2 and the Portugal block), break-even as the base with ×1.5 recommended (§3.7), and the full ticket, "never half" ([`11`](11-checklist-roi.md) §11.6, repeated in [`12`](12-mineracao-ofertas.md)). With low margin, ticket and break-even give very different initial bid-cap numbers. Logged 2026-09-24. → the operation owner's decision.
+58. ~~**Anchor for the initial bid cap: ticket, break-even, or the full ticket?**~~ **RULE ADOPTED (2026-09-24, the operation owner's decision).** Ticket × 1.5, break-even × 1.5 and the full ticket coexisted. **Landed as:** initial bid cap = **break-even × 1.5**. Aligned in [`03`](03-campanha-bidcap.md) §3.2, the Portugal block and §3.7, [`11`](11-checklist-roi.md) §11.6 and the 5 E table in [`12`](12-mineracao-ofertas.md).
 
-59. **Which ruler cuts a creative?** Three cutoff rulers coexist: ROI < 1.3 per ad ([`03`](03-campanha-bidcap.md) §3.3), the 4 conditions together with spend ≥ 3x the Bid Cap (§3.7), and spend of 3x the **ticket** with ROI < 1 ([`11`](11-checklist-roi.md) §11.6). §3.7 says it "resolves several open points," but none of the logged points actually covered this one. Logged 2026-09-24. → the operation owner's decision.
+59. ~~**Which ruler cuts a creative?**~~ **RULE ADOPTED (2026-09-24, the operation owner's decision).** ROI < 1.3 per ad (§3.3), the 4 conditions of §3.7 and 3x the ticket with ROI < 1 (§11.6) coexisted. **Landed as:** the cutoff ruler is the one in [`03`](03-campanha-bidcap.md) §3.7, with all 4 conditions together (spend ≥ 3x the Bid Cap, ROAS below break-even, zero sales, no recent structural change). §3.3 and [`11`](11-checklist-roi.md) §11.6 were aligned.
 
-60. **Creative length: a 90 s ceiling, or 3-5 min for remarketing?** [`04`](04-criativos.md) §4.2 sets a **90 s** ceiling, above which there's a block risk. [`04`](04-criativos.md) §4.12 item 4 mandates **3-5 min** videos for remarketing. [`04c`](04c-criativos-roteiro.md) §4.18 already reconciles the two in practice (past 90 s it's remarketing, not cold traffic), but that decision isn't logged and §4.2 has no exception note. Logged 2026-09-24. → the operation owner's decision.
+60. ~~**Creative length: a 90 s ceiling, or 3-5 min for remarketing?**~~ **RULE ADOPTED (2026-09-24, the operation owner's decision).** **Landed as:** cold traffic up to 90 s; remarketing up to 5 min. [`04`](04-criativos.md) §4.2 now carries the exception note, pointing to the split by length in [`04c`](04c-criativos-roteiro.md) §4.18.
 
-61. **A page below 20% conversion: rebuild it, or call it "average"?** [`11`](11-checklist-roi.md) §11.3 mandates **rebuilding the page** when Visit→IC conversion falls below 20%. [`02`](02-diagnostico-funil.md) §2.1 classifies the same range (10-25%) as "**average**," not as a page to scrap. Logged 2026-09-24. → the operation owner's decision.
+61. ~~**A page below 20% conversion: rebuild it, or call it "average"?**~~ **RULE ADOPTED (2026-09-24, the operation owner's decision).** **Landed as:** Visits→IC conversion below 10% means redo the page; between 10% and 20% means optimize it. Aligned in [`11`](11-checklist-roi.md) §11.3 and [`02`](02-diagnostico-funil.md) §2.1.
 
-62. **A single ruler for connect rate.** Five numbers for the same metric: ≥95% healthy with **3G** throttling ([`02`](02-diagnostico-funil.md) §2.1-2.2), <85% a bad road and >92% stop optimizing with **4G** throttling ([`06`](06-pagina-vendas.md) §6.3), a >90% target ([`11`](11-checklist-roi.md) §11.3), and >80% ([`13`](13-benchmarks-vsl.md)). The 92-95% range gets opposite orders from `02` and `06`, and the test throttle (3G vs. 4G) changes the number measured. Logged 2026-09-24. → the operation owner's decision.
+62. ~~**A single ruler for connect rate.**~~ **RULE ADOPTED (2026-09-24, the operation owner's decision).** Five numbers and two throttles (3G and 4G) coexisted. **Landed as:** connect rate measured on mobile with **4G** throttling; above 90% is good, between 85% and 90% means optimize, below 85% is urgent. Aligned in [`02`](02-diagnostico-funil.md) §2.1-2.2, [`06`](06-pagina-vendas.md) §6.3-6.4 and [`11`](11-checklist-roi.md) §11.3.
 
-63. **Instagram profile anatomy: how many bio lines, how many highlights?** [`11`](11-checklist-roi.md) §11.2 (BBF) and [`14`](14-vocabulario.md) call for a **2-line** bio and **3 highlights**. [`06a`](06a-instagram.md) §6A.3 and §6A.4 call for a **4-line** bio and **5-7 highlights**, saying it "details 11.2," but it contradicts rather than details. Logged 2026-09-24. → the operation owner's decision.
+63. ~~**Instagram profile anatomy: how many bio lines, how many highlights?**~~ **RULE ADOPTED (2026-09-24, the operation owner's decision).** **Landed as:** the profile follows [`06a`](06a-instagram.md) §6A.3-6A.4: a 4-line bio and 5 to 7 highlights. Aligned in [`11`](11-checklist-roi.md) §11.2 and [`14`](14-vocabulario.md).
 
-64. **Upsell price in Portugal.** [`07`](07-funil-upsell.md) §7.3 gives **€14-29** (a number from an auto-generated transcript, unverified); the literal quote from the same transcript says the front goes up to €19 and U1 starts at €29; and §7.4 (the general rule) gives **40-60% of the front**, which for a front up to €19 would put U1 well below €14-29. The three readings of the same source don't reconcile. No client or specific offer named: this is a source-material divergence, to decide before pricing any upsell in Portugal. Logged 2026-09-24. → the operation owner's decision.
+64. ~~**Upsell price in Portugal.**~~ **RULE ADOPTED (2026-09-24, the operation owner's decision).** **Landed as:** in Portugal, front up to €19 and U1 at €29, the source's literal words (the €14-29 came from an auto-generated summary). [`07`](07-funil-upsell.md) §7.3 was aligned, and §7.4 says Portugal is the exception to the 40-60%-of-front rule.
 
-65. **Why "never clone" conflicts with the mirroring method adopted in §12.11.** [`12a`](12a-mineracao-veredito.md) justifies "never clone, always rebuild" by saying that cloning a page by download delivers "frozen code" and is "clear piracy." [Point 55](pontos-em-aberto.md), adopted 2026-09-24, clears exactly that for the quiz funnel: mirroring a third party's funnel code by download (method in [`12b`](12b-fabrica-de-ofertas.md) §12.11). Decide whether 12a's note is scoped to the sales page's copy, images, and brand, or whether mirroring a third party's code needs its own limit (for example, never publishing the original bundle without rewriting the front end). Logged 2026-09-24. → the operation owner's decision.
+65. ~~**Why "never clone" conflicts with the mirroring method adopted in §12.11.**~~ **RULE ADOPTED (2026-09-24, the operation owner's decision).** "Cloning" in the source never means copying and publishing another operation's funnel. **Landed as:** the mirror is for taking reference (structure, flow, question logic) and then building your own funnel, with your own code, copy, images and brand; nothing from the original goes live. The "never clone, always rebuild" rule of [`12a`](12a-mineracao-veredito.md) holds with no exception, and §12.11 of [`12b`](12b-fabrica-de-ofertas.md) is reference for rebuilding, not an exception. [Point 55](pontos-em-aberto.md) was reread in this light.
 
-66. **Guardrail candidate: downloading a watermark-free video via DevTools.** [`04a`](04a-criativos-ia.md) §4.13 item 2 teaches downloading a DreamFace video without the watermark by bypassing the paid plan through the browser's DevTools. It violates the tool's terms and erases the signal that the content was AI-generated, which compounds the risk already logged in [guardrail 21](guardrails.md) (an AI avatar passing as a real person). It isn't one of the 8 tactics already blocked. Logged 2026-09-24. → the operation owner's decision: does it become a guardrail?
+66. ~~**Guardrail candidate: downloading a watermark-free video via DevTools.**~~ **CLOSED (2026-09-24, the operation owner's decision): not a guardrail.** [`04a`](04a-criativos-ia.md) §4.13 item 2 teaches downloading a watermark-free video through the browser's DevTools. **Landed as:** the technique stays in 04a as it is.
 
-67. **Guardrail candidate: proxy and multi-login as account infrastructure.** [`03`](03-campanha-bidcap.md) §3.6 treats proxy and multi-login (LALF) as "essential" for low CPM/CPC. It's managing several profiles with a masked IP, which runs up against Meta's account-integrity rules, and today it isn't covered by any guardrail (unlike buying engagement, point 20, the other infrastructure tactic from §3.6). Logged 2026-09-24. → the operation owner's decision: does it become a guardrail?
+67. ~~**Guardrail candidate: proxy and multi-login as account infrastructure.**~~ **CLOSED (2026-09-24, the operation owner's decision): not a guardrail.** [`03`](03-campanha-bidcap.md) §3.6 treats proxy and multi-login (LALF) as "essential" for low CPM/CPC. **Landed as:** proxy and multi-login stay in §3.6 as method, with no caveat.
 
 ---
 
-**Count:** 67 points in total: 37 open, 19 resolved, adopted or closed, 8 blocked in guardrails (20, 21, 23, 32, 44, 45, 48, 49), and 3 with no publishable content because they're local bookkeeping (5, 6, 13), with the number preserved only so it doesn't break a link from another shard.
+**Count:** 67 points in total: 25 open, 39 resolved, adopted or closed (8 of them with a condition in guardrails: 20, 21, 23, 32, 44, 45, 48, 49), 0 blocked, and 3 with no publishable content because they're local bookkeeping (5, 6, 13), with the number preserved only so it doesn't break a link from another shard.

package/src/modules/lowticket/skills/wizz-lowticket-minerador/SKILL.md

@@ -1,13 +1,13 @@
 ---
 name: wizz-lowticket-minerador
-description: Mines and judges competitor low ticket offers - generates the search vocabulary, reads an offer from a URL or screenshot and returns a verdict, compares two or three side by side, or diagnoses why a modeled offer never scaled. Rebuilds rather than clones, with one decided exception for a quiz funnel's technical structure. Use when hunting for a new offer to model, sizing up a competitor, answering "this offer did not scale, what broke", or cloning a validated quiz funnel into a new market. Do NOT use once the offer is already defined - that is wizz-offer-forge - and do NOT use to run campaigns.
+description: Mines and judges competitor low ticket offers - generates the search vocabulary, reads an offer from a URL or screenshot and returns a verdict, compares two or three side by side, or diagnoses why a modeled offer never scaled. Rebuilds, never clones: a validated quiz funnel is mirrored only as reference, then rebuilt as the operator's own. Use when hunting for a new offer to model, sizing up a competitor, answering "this offer did not scale, what broke", or asked to clone a validated quiz funnel into a new market (handled as mirror as reference, then rebuild your own). Do NOT use once the offer is already defined - that is wizz-offer-forge - and do NOT use to run campaigns.
 ---
 
 # Low Ticket Offer Mining
 
 Finds the variable the operator has not seen yet. Not "this offer looks good", but **where this offer is leaving money on the table, and what a better version of it would change.**
 
-The governing principle: **never clone, always rebuild** — with one decided exception, below, for a quiz funnel's technical structure.
+The governing principle: **never clone, always rebuild**, with no exception. Even a quiz funnel from another market is only mirrored as reference, then rebuilt as your own (operation E, below).
 
 ## Who you are talking to
 
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ Do not dump a report. Find out which of the five jobs this is, then run only tha
 | a read on one offer | **B · Verdict** | URL or screenshot, checkout screenshot if available |
 | to choose between candidates | **C · Comparison** | 2 or 3 offers |
 | to know why an offer failed | **D · Post-mortem** | ROAS, CPA, ticket, conversion rate |
-| to clone a quiz funnel into a new market | **E · Quiz clone** | the funnel URL, whether it is already validated somewhere, and the target market |
+| to take a validated quiz funnel into a new market | **E · Mirror a quiz funnel as reference** | the funnel URL, whether it is already validated somewhere, and the target market |
 
 One question at a time when one question is enough. "Me manda o nicho e o ticket alvo" is a complete message.
 
@@ -91,11 +91,11 @@ Case 4 is the rule that saves money. When everything is bad, the offer is the pr
 
 Finish with numbered actions, ordered by impact.
 
-## E. Clone a quiz funnel
+## E. Mirror a quiz funnel as reference
 
-This is the one exception to "never clone": what gets cloned is the **functional structure** (question order, branches, where the offer appears, the price), never the original's content. The full 5-phase method (triage, recon, recursive mirror, audit, funnel walk), what the mirror does not bring over (backend, payment gateway, pixels), and what to swap before publishing (copy, images, brand, legal text, the original owner's pixels and IDs) is `12b-fabrica-de-ofertas.md` §12.11 - read it before starting, do not improvise the steps from memory.
+This is not an exception to "never clone": mirror as reference, then rebuild your own. The downloaded mirror is study material for the **structure, the flow and the logic of the questions** (question order, branches, where the offer appears, the price). The deliverable is the operator's own funnel, built from that reference with its own code, copy, images and brand; nothing from the original goes live. The full method (triage, recon, recursive mirror, audit, funnel walk), what the mirror does not bring over (backend, payment gateway, pixels), and what to build from scratch before publishing (code, copy, images, brand, legal text, your own pixels and payment IDs) is `12b-fabrica-de-ofertas.md` §12.11 - read it before starting, do not improvise the steps from memory.
 
-Confirm first: is there already a validated funnel to clone (own or a competitor's in another market), and what is the target market? The market sequence is Brazil first, then Portugal/Europe, only then Spain or the UK once local metrics are validated. This operation needs a coding environment (Claude Code or Codex with Playwright) - it is not a chat-only deliverable, say so upfront.
+Confirm first: is there already a validated funnel to use as reference (own or a competitor's in another market), and what is the target market? The market sequence is Brazil first, then Portugal/Europe, only then Spain or the UK once local metrics are validated. This operation needs a coding environment (Claude Code or Codex with Playwright) - it is not a chat-only deliverable, say so upfront.
 
 ## Evidence rules
 
@@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ Never encourage copying a landing page, an identity, a text, an image, a product
 
 The reverse-engineering read order is fixed: **Demanda → Hook → Promessa → Mecanismo → Oferta → Preço → Checkout → Monetização → Pós-compra.**
 
-**The one exception:** cloning a quiz funnel's technical structure to take an already-validated offer into a new market (operation E, above). Structure is clonable there; content, brand, legal text and every tracking ID are not, and get swapped before publishing.
+**No exception, not even for a quiz funnel:** to take an already-validated quiz funnel into a new market (operation E, above), mirror it as reference, then rebuild your own. The mirror is studied, never published; code, content, brand, legal text and every tracking ID in what goes live are your own.
 
 ## Prompt and scope safety