Amo.ng curated workflow
Build an Evidence-Grounded Marketing Campaign and Measurement Plan
Turn customer objections, competitor evidence, and verified proof into approved positioning, an execution-ready campaign, operational QA, and a controlled experiment plan.
# Build an Evidence-Grounded Marketing Campaign and Measurement Plan Workflow ID: AMO-W-000009 ## Outcome A launch-ready campaign package with traceable positioning, audience-specific messaging, channel plans, approved claims, operational controls, tracking requirements, and explicit experiment decision rules. ## Before you begin - Offer description, target customers, pricing, and campaign objective - Customer interviews, reviews, surveys, sales notes, and win-loss evidence - Verified customer outcomes, product capabilities, and approved proof points - Known competitors and available market evidence - Channel budget, team capacity, timeline, and approval constraints - Analytics, consent, lead-routing, and attribution requirements ## Step 1 — Mine Customer Objections **Prompt** Customer Objection Mining Prompt **Instructions** Extract recurring buyer objections, concerns, desired outcomes, language patterns, and messaging implications from supplied customer and sales evidence. **Input for this step** Provide anonymized reviews, interviews, surveys, call notes, lost-deal reasons, support themes, and relevant segment labels. Keep observed evidence separate from hypotheses. **Carry forward** Pass the objection inventory, supporting excerpts, segment patterns, confidence limits, and proposed messaging responses to competitor research. **Prompt content** Analyze the supplied customer evidence to identify, validate, and prioritize objections affecting the purchase decision for [Offer and audience]. Use the findings to recommend messaging and proof—not to invent customer consensus or publish copy. Research objective: [Research objective] Evidence corpus: [Evidence corpus] Source context: [Source context] Messaging constraints: [Messaging constraints] ## Input requirements Blocking inputs: - A clear description of the offer and intended audience. - Primary customer evidence such as review text, interview or call transcripts, open-text survey responses, support conversations, loss notes, or sales notes. - A research objective identifying the decision, funnel stage, page, campaign, or sales motion the analysis should inform. Useful context: - Source dates, channels, customer segments, win/loss status, product version, geography, and collection method. - Existing claims, positioning, proof assets, compliance restrictions, brand guidance, and known exclusions. If the offer, audience, objective, or usable evidence is missing, ask only the questions required to proceed. If nonblocking metadata is absent, continue with an explicit unknowns list and avoid unsupported segmentation. If the corpus is too large for the current ChatGPT context, propose a batch plan and analyze only the text actually available; do not imply complete-corpus coverage. ## Evidence and action rules - Treat supplied records as observations, not as proof of market-wide prevalence. - Assign stable source IDs to records or preserve existing IDs. Every reported objection theme must cite its supporting source IDs and include brief verbatim excerpts where permitted. - Keep verbatim customer language separate from paraphrases, interpretations, hypotheses, and proposed copy. - Distinguish objections from questions, complaints, feature requests, usability problems, preferences, negotiation tactics, and general negative sentiment. Explain ambiguous classifications. - Report counts with a denominator and unit, such as records, respondents, calls, or mentions. Do not treat multiple mentions by one person as multiple customers. Flag duplicates, syndicated reviews, repeated scripts, and sampling bias. - Do not infer demographics, health status, financial condition, or other sensitive traits unless explicitly supplied, necessary, and lawful. Redact direct identifiers and unnecessary personal or confidential information from excerpts. - Do not fabricate quotations, source details, customer segments, statistics, product capabilities, guarantees, testimonials, or proof. Mark conflicting evidence and unknowns rather than resolving them by assumption. - Frequency is only one signal. Consider intensity, purchase proximity, segment relevance, recurrence across independent sources, answerability, and available proof. Explain any weighting used. - Identify unsupported or regulated claims that require legal, compliance, product, or subject-matter review. Do not recommend deceptive urgency, concealment of material limitations, manipulation of vulnerable people, or dismissal of legitimate concerns. - ChatGPT may inspect only the content supplied in this conversation, organize findings, calculate transparent counts from that content, and propose messaging or experiments. It cannot access omitted files, validate external facts, contact customers, change campaigns, approve claims, or publish content. - All copy, claim, targeting, and publication decisions remain proposed until an authorized human reviews the evidence, proof, privacy implications, and applicable policy or legal requirements. ## Analysis workflow 1. Define the analytical unit and scope: record type, included sources, time range, audience, funnel stage, and objective. Record exclusions and unresolved scope conflicts. 2. Build a corpus ledger. Assign source IDs; note channel, date or date range, segment metadata, purchase status when supplied, and usability. Identify empty, truncated, duplicate, irrelevant, or potentially synthetic records without silently deleting them. 3. Extract atomic objection expressions. Preserve a brief customer-language excerpt, its source ID, context, and whether it is explicit or inferred. Split records containing materially different concerns. 4. Classify each expression by: - objection category, such as price or value, trust or credibility, fit, need or priority, switching cost, implementation effort, usability, risk, timing, authority, compatibility, support, or competitive alternative; - underlying concern; - funnel or decision stage when evidenced; - type: objection, question, complaint, feature request, preference, negotiation, or unclear; - evidence strength and uncertainty. Create a corpus-derived category when the standard categories do not fit. 5. Cluster semantically related expressions without erasing meaningful differences. Keep distinct themes separate when their root concern, segment, stage, or required response differs. Surface minority and contradictory themes rather than forcing consensus. 6. Quantify each theme using transparent record-level and, when possible, unique-customer counts. State denominators, missing metadata, duplicate treatment, and whether cross-source recurrence is present. Never convert the supplied sample into an unsupported market percentage. 7. Prioritize themes with a documented rubric covering evidence volume, intensity, purchase relevance, cross-source recurrence, strategic fit, answerability, and proof readiness. Show component judgments; label close or fragile rankings. 8. Map each priority objection to a messaging job, response angle, appropriate proof, likely channel or funnel location, and claims risk. Preserve legitimate limitations instead of arguing every objection away. 9. Draft concise copy hypotheses in customer-relevant language. Label them as proposals, avoid presenting customer excerpts as endorsements, and do not convert unverified interpretations into factual claims. 10. Identify proof gaps, including missing demonstrations, comparisons, pricing clarity, implementation details, policies, case evidence, technical validation, or product confirmation. Name the owner or review function needed when it can be inferred; otherwise mark it unassigned. 11. Design validation tests appropriate to the decision, such as message testing, moderated interviews, sales-call coding, landing-page experiments, or follow-up surveys. Specify the hypothesis, audience, channel, primary measure, guardrail, minimum decision rule if supplied, and what result would refute the hypothesis. Do not claim tests were run. 12. Reconcile the analysis before delivery: verify source traceability, counts, denominators, duplicate handling, classification consistency, contradictory evidence, privacy redaction, and the distinction between observed findings and proposed actions. ## Required output ### 1. Scope and evidence status State the objective, offer, audience, analytical unit, included and excluded sources, coverage limitations, blocking issues, assumptions, unknowns, and conflicts. Label the analysis as complete for supplied evidence, partial, or blocked. ### 2. Corpus ledger Provide a table with: source ID or range, source type, supplied date or range, supplied segment, record count, usable count, exclusion count and reason, duplicate treatment, and material caveats. ### 3. Prioritized objection map Provide a table with: - rank; - objection theme and underlying concern; - classification; - brief verbatim evidence excerpts; - source IDs; - unique-record or unique-customer count; - denominator and unit; - segments and decision stages evidenced; - intensity and purchase relevance; - cross-source recurrence; - contradictory or disconfirming evidence; - confidence level with rationale; - priority rationale. ### 4. Customer-language bank Group short, privacy-safe excerpts by theme. For each excerpt include its source ID, relevant context, and whether it is representative, unusually intense, or an outlier. Do not silently polish quotation wording. ### 5. Messaging response matrix For each priority theme provide: messaging job, response angle, proposed copy hypothesis, recommended channel or funnel location, required proof, proof currently supplied, unsupported-claim risk, reviewer needed, and status as ready for review, proof blocked, or research blocked. ### 6. Proof-gap register List each missing proof asset or unresolved product fact, the objection it affects, why it matters, evidence supporting the need, proposed owner or review function, risk if ignored, and minimum resolution required before publication. ### 7. Validation plan Provide a sequenced test table with: hypothesis, audience, method, variant or stimulus, primary metric, guardrail metric, decision rule, evidence required, likely confounders, and owner or approval point. Clearly mark all tests as proposed unless execution evidence was supplied. ### 8. Verification and acceptance report Report expected requirement, actual observation, evidence, and status for each check: - Every priority theme has at least one traceable source ID and excerpt. - Theme counts reconcile with the stated analytical unit and denominator. - Duplicate and multi-mention handling is documented. - Findings are separated from assumptions, interpretations, and copy hypotheses. - Minority, conflicting, and disconfirming evidence is visible. - Segment conclusions use only supplied segment data. - Proposed factual claims are supported or marked as proof blocked. - Excerpts are privacy-safe and retain their original meaning. - Corpus coverage and ChatGPT context limitations are disclosed. - Recommendations map to the stated objective and constraints. Do not mark a check verified unless the supporting evidence is present. Record failed, partial, unavailable, and not-applicable checks separately, with the remediation needed. ### 9. Decision handoff Summarize which objections should be addressed first, which should not yet drive messaging, which claims require approval, and the smallest safe next action. Keep researched, proposed, approved, tested, and published states distinct. Never state that messaging was approved, tested, implemented, sent, or published unless corresponding execution evidence was supplied. ## Step 2 — Build a Citation-Backed Competitor Positioning Brief **Prompt** Citation-Backed Competitor Positioning Brief **Instructions** Research competitor claims, pricing signals, proof quality, messaging patterns, and defensible positioning gaps using cited sources. **Input for this step** Provide the target category, named competitors, priority customer segments, objection findings, geography, and research cutoff expectations. **Carry forward** Pass the sourced comparison, competitor claim patterns, evidence quality notes, pricing signals, and positioning opportunities to the narrative builder. **Prompt content** You are a competitive intelligence researcher specializing in citation-backed market research, competitor positioning, claims verification, pricing signal review, messaging analysis, source quality assessment, and defensible comparison briefs. Your task is to research and synthesize credible sources about competitor positioning, claims, pricing signals, target buyers, messaging gaps, and differentiation opportunities. The output should help a team make informed positioning, sales, marketing, or product decisions without relying on memory, assumptions, or unsupported claims. Context: Use the context below. If any important detail is missing, list it under “Missing Inputs” and make a conservative assumption before continuing. * Company or product: [Company or product] * Competitors: [Competitors] * Market category: [Market category] * Target buyer: [Target buyer] * Comparison dimensions: [Comparison dimensions] * Geography: [Geography] * Source freshness needs: [Source freshness needs] * Claims to verify: [Claims to verify] * Messaging channels: [Messaging channels] * Decision to support: [Decision to support] * Pricing or packaging signals: [Pricing or packaging signals] * Differentiators to test: [Differentiators to test] * Buyer objections: [Buyer objections] * Required source types: [Required source types] Important constraints: * Do not invent facts, metrics, citations, screenshots, customer logos, funding details, pricing, features, rankings, awards, testimonials, partnerships, market share, or competitor claims. * Cite sources for factual claims. * Separate verified evidence from assumptions and interpretation. * Prefer primary sources such as competitor websites, pricing pages, product pages, documentation, help centers, official announcements, filings, app listings, marketplace pages, and credible third-party reports where relevant. * Clearly label competitor-owned sources as promotional when appropriate. * Flag outdated, thin, promotional, contradictory, unverifiable, or weak evidence. * Do not present competitor marketing claims as objective truth unless supported by stronger evidence. * Do not create defamatory, misleading, or unfair competitor claims. * Do not recommend copying competitor messaging. * Use competitor research to identify positioning gaps, buyer concerns, proof needs, and defensible differentiation. * Include human review gates before using the output in public-facing sales decks, ads, landing pages, investor materials, legal/compliance contexts, or direct competitor comparison pages. * Make the output practical for marketing, sales, product, founder, or strategy teams. Task: Create a citation-backed competitor positioning brief for the company or product. Output format: ### 1. Research Objective Summary Summarize: * Company or product * Competitors reviewed * Market category * Target buyer * Geography * Decision to support * Comparison dimensions * Source freshness needs * Missing inputs ### 2. Source List Create a source table with: * Source title * Source URL * Publisher or owner * Source type * Date or freshness signal, if available * Competitor or topic covered * Key evidence * Source strength * Limitation or caution ### 3. Competitor Positioning Matrix Create a matrix comparing competitors. Include: * Competitor * Main positioning claim * Target buyer * Core offer * Key features or capabilities claimed * Pricing or packaging signal, if available * Proof used * Messaging channel where evidence appears * Source references * Evidence strength ### 4. Claims and Evidence Review Review important claims. Create a table with: * Claim * Who makes the claim * Source * Evidence supporting it * Evidence missing * Status: verified, partially supported, unclear, promotional, outdated, or unsupported * How the team should use or avoid the claim ### 5. Pricing and Packaging Signals If pricing or packaging information is available, summarize: * Competitor * Pricing page or source * Visible pricing model * Packaging signal * Free trial, free plan, demo, quote-based, or enterprise signal * Buyer implication * Source limitation * What needs manual verification ### 6. Messaging Gap Analysis Identify: * Common competitor messages * Overused claims * Underexplained buyer problems * Missing proof points * Weak competitor explanations * Differentiation opportunities * Claims the company should avoid unless it has proof ### 7. Buyer Objection and Proof Map Create a table with: * Buyer objection * Competitor response or positioning * Evidence source * Proof quality * Opportunity for our company or product * Proof needed before using the angle ### 8. Positioning Opportunities Recommend defensible positioning angles. For each angle, include: * Positioning angle * Why it may work * Evidence supporting the opportunity * Competitor gap addressed * Required proof * Risk or caution * Best channel to test ### 9. Sales or Marketing Handoff Create a practical handoff with: * What to say * What not to say * Claims requiring proof * Sources to keep * Competitor claims to avoid repeating * Messaging tests to run * Landing page or sales deck implications * Human review needs ### 10. Source Quality Notes Assess the research quality. Include: * Strongest sources * Weakest sources * Outdated sources * Promotional sources * Contradictory evidence * Claims needing manual verification * Research gaps ### 11. Final Recommendation Provide: * Best-supported positioning direction * Competitor gaps to focus on * Claims to avoid * Proof to collect next * Sources to cite * Recommended next action * Human review checklist ### 12. Missing Inputs and Assumptions List: * Missing inputs * Assumptions made * Evidence limitations * Sources that should be checked manually * Items that should not be used publicly until verified Verification: Before finalizing, confirm that: * Every factual competitor claim is supported by a source or clearly labeled as unverified. * Competitor-owned sources are not treated as neutral proof. * Outdated, promotional, thin, or contradictory evidence is flagged. * The brief avoids defamatory, misleading, or unsupported claims. * Positioning recommendations are tied to evidence, buyer needs, or clearly labeled assumptions. * The output is practical for a sales, marketing, product, founder, or strategy team. Begin now. If required context is missing, state the missing inputs first, then continue with conservative assumptions. ## Step 3 — Create the Customer Narrative and Positioning Spine **Prompt** Evidence-Traceable Customer Narrative and Positioning Builder **Instructions** Synthesize customer evidence, objections, competitor findings, and verified proof into a traceable strategic narrative, messaging spine, objection matrix, and validation plan. **Input for this step** Supply the first two outputs plus offer details, product constraints, approved claims, win-loss evidence, and proof that may be used publicly. **Carry forward** Pass the proposed buyer narrative, promise, differentiation, proof hierarchy, objection responses, prohibited claims, and validation priorities to campaign planning. **Review note** Marketing, product, sales, and legal or compliance reviewers should approve the core positioning, proof use, and claim boundaries before campaign assets are planned. **Prompt content** Develop a customer-evidence-based strategic narrative and messaging system from the materials supplied below. Treat the result as a decision-support draft, not as validated market truth or approved public copy. ## Working context - Product or offer: [Product or offer] - Target customer: [Target customer] - Customer quotes or interviews: [Customer quotes or interviews] - Win-loss notes: [Win-loss notes] - Competitors: [Competitors] - Current positioning: [Current positioning] - Sales objections: [Sales objections] - Proof points: [Proof points] - Channels to support: [Channels to support] - Decision deadline: [Decision deadline] ## ChatGPT operating boundary Use only information visible in this ChatGPT conversation or in files and connected sources whose contents are actually available in the session. Do not claim access to a CRM, analytics platform, call library, website, competitor system, or private repository unless its contents are supplied and observable here. You may inspect, organize, compare, summarize, challenge, and draft from the supplied material. You may not interview customers, confirm external facts, measure campaign performance, obtain consent, approve claims, contact people, edit live assets, publish copy, launch tests, or represent that a recommendation was adopted. Describe all such activities as proposed, pending, unavailable, or requiring an authorized human. ## Input gate The minimum inputs for a defensible synthesis are: 1. A clear product or offer and target customer. 2. At least one attributable body of customer or buyer evidence, such as interview notes, call excerpts, survey responses, sales notes, or win-loss records. 3. The decision the narrative must support and at least one intended channel. 4. Any proof points expected to support performance, savings, adoption, security, compliance, or comparative claims. Current positioning, named competitors, objections, source dates, customer segments, buying-stage context, and a decision deadline are useful but may be absent. If the product, target customer, intended decision, or usable customer evidence is missing, stop and ask concise clarification questions. If optional context is missing, continue only where safe, preserve the gap as an unknown, and state how it limits the analysis. If sources conflict, retain both accounts, identify the conflict, and do not resolve it by guessing. If evidence is too thin for a strategic conclusion, produce an evidence-gap report and validation plan rather than a confident narrative. ## Evidence, privacy, and claims controls - Assign a stable evidence ID to every distinct quote, observation, objection, win-loss pattern, proof point, and competitive reference used in the analysis. - Preserve available source type, speaker or segment, date, buying stage, and context. Mark unavailable provenance as unknown. - Keep supplied facts and verbatim customer statements separate from interpretations, hypotheses, assumptions, and recommendations. - Do not fabricate, merge, polish, or strengthen customer quotations. Use quotation marks only for text supplied as verbatim; otherwise label it as a paraphrase. - Do not turn frequency into importance without explaining the basis, and do not treat a memorable anecdote as a general market pattern. - Distinguish stated objections from inferred underlying concerns. An inferred concern is a hypothesis, not something the buyer said. - Treat customer counts, revenue impact, conversion changes, time savings, benchmarks, certifications, security properties, legal claims, and competitor comparisons as unverified unless directly supported by supplied evidence. - Do not infer sensitive personal characteristics or expose unnecessary personal data. Minimize names, contact details, account identifiers, health information, financial information, credentials, and confidential commercial terms. If sensitive or apparently unauthorized material is present, pause, identify the concern, and ask for a redacted or authorized version. - Do not recommend deceptive scarcity, fabricated consensus, disparagement, dark patterns, or claims that exceed the evidence. - Flag material that may require legal, privacy, security, compliance, finance, customer, or brand review. Never imply that such review occurred unless explicit review evidence is supplied. ## Analysis workflow ### 1. Frame the decision Restate the offer, target segment, buying context, current positioning, intended channels, decision deadline, and the exact decision the output can support. List blocking gaps, non-blocking gaps, and scope boundaries. ### 2. Build the evidence ledger Normalize the supplied material without erasing source differences. For each item, record: - Evidence ID - Evidence type - Exact excerpt or faithful summary - Source and date - Customer segment or deal context - Buying stage - What it may support - Limitations or possible bias - Evidence strength Rate strength as strong, moderate, weak, or unassessable. Explain each rating using relevance, provenance, specificity, recency, independence, and recurrence; do not rely on the label alone. ### 3. Separate observation from interpretation Create an insight register that links each proposed insight to evidence IDs. For every insight, state: - What was observed - Interpretation or hypothesis - Supporting and contradicting evidence IDs - Applicable segment and context - Confidence and rationale - Unknowns - Validation needed Identify sampling bias, overrepresentation of wins or losses, interviewer leading, stale evidence, mixed segments, inconsistent definitions, and missing negative cases where relevant. ### 4. Identify narrative candidates Develop up to three materially different narrative candidates. Each candidate must address: - Market or operating change - Buyer tension and buying trigger - Cost or consequence of maintaining the status quo - Why current approaches may fall short - Differentiated answer offered by the product - Credible proof - Why action may be timely For each candidate, cite evidence IDs, identify unsupported links, specify the segment for which it may apply, and explain the trade-offs. Do not manufacture urgency or assert that competitors fail without evidence. ### 5. Select a recommended narrative Compare candidates using evidence coverage, relevance to the target customer, differentiation, proof readiness, objection resilience, and channel usability. Recommend one candidate only if the supplied evidence supports that choice. Otherwise, identify the leading hypotheses and the evidence needed to choose between them. ### 6. Build the messaging spine Create: - A positioning statement naming target customer, relevant need or trigger, category or frame of reference, differentiated value, and reason to believe - One primary message - Three to five supporting messages - Evidence-backed proof points - Qualified claims that require careful wording - Claims to avoid until substantiated Attach evidence IDs and confidence to every major message. Keep proof distinct from a promise: a testimonial, case result, product capability, benchmark, and certification support different kinds of claims. ### 7. Handle objections Use only supplied objections as observed objections. You may add inferred concerns only in a separately labeled hypothesis section. For each objection, distinguish whether it appears to concern value, urgency, trust, implementation, switching cost, security, compliance, integration, budget, authority, or competitive fit. Draft a response that acknowledges the concern, uses available evidence without overpromising, and ends with a diagnostic follow-up question. ### 8. Adapt by channel Adapt the message only for the requested channels. Preserve the same strategic claim while accounting for audience awareness, space, buying stage, proof burden, and call to action. Label all wording as draft. For public, paid, comparative, regulated, financial, security, or performance claims, identify the required approval owner and substantiation before use. ### 9. Design validation Propose tests that can distinguish between competing interpretations rather than merely confirm the preferred narrative. For each test, specify participant segment, method, stimulus, decision criterion, confirming observation, weakening observation, owner, timing, and privacy or consent consideration. Do not report a test as run or a result as measured unless execution evidence is supplied. ### 10. Verify the draft and assign a handoff state Perform a document-level review of the generated draft. This review may verify traceability and internal consistency, but it cannot verify market accuracy or real-world performance. Use these handoff states only: - Blocked: a minimum input is absent or the material presents an unresolved privacy, authorization, or provenance concern. - Draft with material evidence gaps: useful synthesis is possible, but a central narrative link or claim lacks support. - Draft ready for human review: every major message is traceable, conflicts and assumptions are visible, and no known prohibited claim remains in recommended copy. Never label the work approved, validated, tested, launched, published, accepted by customers, or complete unless explicit evidence of that event is supplied. Passing the document review means only that the draft meets the stated internal checks; it is not launch approval. ## Required deliverable ### Decision Frame State the decision supported, target segment, offer, buying context, requested channels, deadline, scope boundaries, and missing inputs. ### Evidence Ledger Provide a table with columns: Evidence ID | Type | Excerpt or faithful summary | Source and date | Segment and buying context | Potential support | Strength and rationale | Limitations ### Insight and Conflict Register Provide a table with columns: Insight ID | Observation | Interpretation or hypothesis | Supporting evidence IDs | Contradicting evidence IDs | Confidence rationale | Unknowns | Validation needed ### Customer Decision Summary Summarize buying triggers, pains, desired outcomes, current alternatives, proof needs, objections, and segment differences. Distinguish observed patterns from hypotheses. ### Narrative Candidate Comparison Provide a table with columns: Candidate | Core narrative | Evidence coverage | Differentiation | Proof readiness | Objection resilience | Channel fit | Unsupported links | Trade-offs ### Recommended Strategic Narrative Present the market change, buyer tension, status-quo consequence, shortcomings of current approaches, differentiated answer, proof, and why-now logic. Include evidence IDs after each material assertion. If selection is not supportable, present competing hypotheses instead of a recommendation. ### Messaging Spine Provide the positioning statement, primary message, three to five supporting messages, proof points, qualifications, and claims to avoid. Include evidence IDs, confidence, and suitable channels for each major message. ### Objection Handling Matrix Provide a table with columns: Observed objection | Possible underlying concern | Evidence-backed response | Evidence IDs | Proof still needed | Diagnostic follow-up question | Overpromise risk ### Channel Drafts and Controls For each requested channel, provide draft messaging, intended audience and buying stage, supporting evidence IDs, substantiation needs, and required human approval. Do not claim that any draft was published or delivered. ### Validation Plan Provide a table with columns: Hypothesis | Participant segment | Method and stimulus | Confirming observation | Weakening observation | Decision criterion | Owner | Timing | Consent or privacy control ### Claims and Review Register Provide a table with columns: Claim or issue | Classification | Evidence IDs | Current status | Risk if used | Required reviewer | Required substantiation or action Classifications may include supported fact, customer statement, interpretation, hypothesis, assumption, conflict, unknown, or unsupported claim. ### Acceptance Review Provide a table with columns: Check | Expected observation | Actual document observation | Evidence reference | Status | Required correction Run at least these checks: 1. Every major narrative and messaging claim has an evidence ID or is explicitly classified as unsupported. 2. Verbatim quotes match the supplied wording and remain in context. 3. Evidence from different segments or buying stages has not been silently combined. 4. Contradictory evidence and material unknowns are visible. 5. Proof points support the type and scope of claim being made. 6. Objection responses avoid guarantees and unsupported comparisons. 7. Channel drafts preserve the strategy while respecting channel-specific proof burdens. 8. Sensitive data is minimized and review-sensitive claims are routed to appropriate humans. 9. Proposed tests are not represented as executed, and unavailable results remain unavailable. 10. No approval, publication, launch, customer acceptance, or completion claim is made without supplied evidence. Mark each check pass, fail, or not assessable. Reconcile correctable failures before finalizing. Keep unresolved failures visible and assign the appropriate handoff state. ### Handoff State the handoff state, the recommended human reviewers, unresolved decisions, evidence still needed, and the next authorized action. End with a concise reminder that humans remain responsible for validating customer interpretation, substantiating claims, and approving external use. ## Step 4 — Turn the Positioning into an Execution-Ready Campaign **Prompt** Evidence-Grounded AI Marketing Campaign Planner for Teams and Agencies **Instructions** Build a campaign plan with evidence-backed messaging, audience segments, channel choices, approval gates, measurement definitions, a capacity-aware calendar, and clear AI-use boundaries. **Input for this step** Provide the approved positioning spine, campaign objective, audience priorities, channel constraints, budget, team capacity, timeline, and required approvals. **Carry forward** Pass the approved campaign calendar, channel and asset matrix, audience and claim controls, owners, KPI definitions, dependencies, and risk register to experiment design. **Prompt content** Create an evidence-grounded, execution-ready marketing campaign plan from the inputs and source materials below. Use Claude to synthesize the supplied brief, documents, data, and constraints; do not imply that Claude accessed systems, analytics, files, websites, or current market information that were not supplied or explicitly made available in the active Claude session. Campaign inputs Campaign goal: [Campaign goal] Target audience segments: [Target audience segments] Offer or product: [Offer or product] Market and applicable requirements: [Market and applicable requirements] Brand voice and claims rules: [Brand voice and claims rules] Unique value proposition: [Unique value proposition] Marketing channels: [Marketing channels] Available assets and source evidence: [Available assets and source evidence] Team roles and approval authority: [Team roles and approval authority] Campaign timeline: [Campaign timeline] Budget and capacity constraints: [Budget and capacity constraints] KPI definitions and baselines: [KPI definitions and baselines] Tracking and reporting setup: [Tracking and reporting setup] Known risks and exclusions: [Known risks and exclusions] Definition of done: [Definition of done] Input contract Treat the campaign goal, offer, audience, market, timeline, available capacity, publishing authority, and definition of done as blocking prerequisites. If any is absent, contradictory, or too vague to support responsible planning, ask a short set of prioritized clarification questions before producing the full plan. If answers are unavailable, provide only a bounded planning scaffold, label the affected decisions Blocked or Unknown, and state what evidence or decision is required. Treat brand documentation, approved claims, customer research, historical performance, channel benchmarks, budget allocation, tracking specifications, and existing asset inventories as useful supporting context. Their absence does not always block planning, but it must reduce confidence and must not be concealed with invented facts or benchmarks. Evidence and uncertainty rules 1. Classify material inputs and conclusions as one of: Supplied fact, Evidence-backed observation, Assumption, Hypothesis, Unknown, or Conflict. 2. For evidence-backed statements, identify the supplied source by file name, document section, dataset, report period, URL, or other available reference. Do not create citations or pretend to have reviewed absent material. 3. Keep audience facts separate from inferred personas. Label inferred motivations, objections, channel preferences, and buying triggers as hypotheses until supported by research or performance evidence. 4. Do not invent market size, competitor behavior, conversion rates, customer quotations, legal requirements, channel benchmarks, baselines, attribution results, or performance targets. 5. A target without a supplied baseline or benchmark must be labeled Proposed and include the rationale and validation method. 6. Surface conflicting sources rather than silently choosing one. Explain the campaign impact and name the owner who must resolve the conflict. 7. If web search or a connected data source is explicitly available and authorized in the current Claude session, distinguish retrieved evidence from user-supplied evidence and cite the source and retrieval date. Otherwise, state that external validation was not performed. Authority, privacy, and action boundaries Claude may analyze supplied materials, organize evidence, calculate from supplied data, draft concepts, compare options, and propose a campaign workflow. Claude must not claim to have contacted customers, queried live analytics, changed budgets, configured tracking, obtained consent, approved claims, scheduled assets, published content, launched ads, or measured results unless the action was actually performed through an authorized capability and supported by execution evidence. All public-facing assets require the designated human approval authority. Legal, privacy, regulatory, product, or subject-matter review is mandatory when claims, promotions, testimonials, regulated products, personal data, intellectual property, accessibility obligations, or material customer promises are involved. Do not use raw personal or sensitive data when aggregated, minimized, or de-identified information is sufficient. Do not recommend sensitive-trait targeting, deceptive personalization, fabricated testimonials, dark patterns, or unsupported scarcity. Stop and mark the relevant work Blocked if the plan depends on an unsupported material claim, unresolved consent or privacy issue, missing publishing authority, contradictory offer terms, unavailable measurement capability, or a timeline that cannot accommodate required review. Propose a safe resolution; do not bypass the control. Planning workflow 1. Normalize the brief and build an input-and-evidence ledger. Identify the campaign objective, funnel stage, conversion action, scope, exclusions, decision owners, supplied evidence, assumptions, unknowns, and conflicts. 2. Translate the goal into a measurable objective. Connect the primary conversion action to the offer, audience need, campaign period, baseline, target, measurement source, and attribution limitations. If measurement is not currently possible, specify the instrumentation prerequisite. 3. Develop audience segments and provisional personas. For each, distinguish known demographic or firmographic attributes from inferred goals, pain points, triggers, objections, trust requirements, preferred channels, and content needs. Include an evidence reference and confidence level. 4. Establish positioning and messaging. Produce a positioning statement, value proposition, messaging pillars, rational proof points, emotional angles, objection responses, and calls to action. Build a claims matrix linking every material factual or comparative claim to evidence, permitted wording, restrictions, reviewer, and approval state. Exclude unsupported claims from publication-ready recommendations. 5. Select channels using explicit trade-offs. Assess audience fit, funnel purpose, creative requirements, reach or intent, cost constraints, team capacity, measurement readiness, platform-policy exposure, and dependencies. Explain why each selected channel is included and why plausible alternatives were deferred. 6. Design the asset system. Define campaign anchor assets, channel adaptations, landing-page sections, email sequence roles, social concepts, video concepts, advertising variations, lead magnets, retargeting messages, and sales-enablement materials as appropriate. For each asset, specify its segment, funnel purpose, message, proof required, CTA, source asset, owner, review path, and repurposing limits. 7. Map AI and human responsibilities from brief to reporting. Cover research synthesis, ideation, drafting, creative variation, factual checking, design, brand review, legal or compliance review, approval, scheduling, publication, monitoring, analysis, and repurposing. State what Claude can propose, what a human must inspect, and who has final authority. 8. Build a dependency-aware calendar that fits the supplied timeline and capacity. Include briefing, production, review, revision, tracking validation, launch readiness, publication, monitoring, optimization review, reporting, and repurposing. Do not schedule publication before prerequisite approvals and tracking checks. 9. Define measurement and decision rules. For every KPI, include its formula, funnel stage, baseline, proposed target, data source, tracking owner, reporting cadence, attribution caveat, and the decision triggered by underperformance or overperformance. Do not treat proxy engagement metrics as conversions. 10. Assess operational and marketing risks. Include brand inconsistency, unsupported or misleading claims, legal or platform-policy exposure, privacy and consent, intellectual-property issues, accessibility, audience mismatch, model-generated inaccuracies, review bottlenecks, missed dependencies, budget overrun, tracking failure, channel underperformance, and reputational harm. Assign likelihood, impact, preventive control, detection signal, mitigation, contingency, owner, and residual risk. 11. Reconcile the complete plan against budget, capacity, dates, evidence, approvals, and measurement readiness. Reduce scope or mark work Blocked where constraints cannot be reconciled; do not hide infeasibility. Required deliverable Produce the following sections in order: 1. Campaign status and executive brief State whether the result is Ready for human review, Partially planned, or Blocked. Summarize the objective, audience, offer, conversion action, strategic approach, main constraints, unresolved decisions, and immediate human actions. Make clear that this is a proposed plan, not proof of launch or approval. 2. Input and evidence ledger Use columns: Item | Classification | Supplied value or observation | Source reference | Confidence | Conflict or limitation | Campaign impact | Required action or owner. 3. Strategy decision record Use columns: Decision | Selected approach | Alternatives considered | Evidence and rationale | Trade-off | Assumption or dependency | Decision owner | Status. 4. Audience segment and persona matrix Use columns: Segment or persona | Known attributes | Goals and jobs | Pain points | Trigger | Objection | Trust requirement | Channel preference | Message angle | Content need | Evidence reference | Confidence | Validation method. 5. Positioning, messaging, and claims controls Provide the positioning statement, value proposition, messaging pillars, emotional angles, proof points, objection responses, and CTA options. Then use a claims matrix with columns: Proposed claim | Claim type | Evidence source | Permitted wording | Prohibited or risky wording | Market limitation | Required reviewer | Approval evidence | Status. 6. Channel portfolio and rationale Use columns: Channel | Segment | Funnel purpose | Conversion path | Content format | Cadence | Capacity or budget assumption | AI contribution | Human owner | KPI | Tracking source | Dependency | Selection rationale | Status. 7. Campaign asset backlog Use columns: Priority | Asset | Segment | Funnel purpose | Core message | Proof required | CTA | Source material | Owner | Reviewer | Due date | Approval gate | Repurposing rule | Status. Include concepts and briefs, not fabricated production or publication claims. 8. AI and human responsibility map Use columns: Workflow stage | Required input | Claude may assist with | Claude must not claim or do | Human responsible | Required evidence | Approval gate | Failure or escalation path. 9. Approval gate checklist Cover factual accuracy, evidence-backed claims, offer and pricing accuracy, brand voice, legal or regulatory review, privacy and consent, intellectual property, testimonial permission, accessibility, visual quality, CTA and destination integrity, channel and platform fit, tracking readiness, final publishing authority, and post-publication monitoring ownership. Use columns: Check | Acceptance criterion | Reviewer | Evidence required | Actual observation from supplied material | Status | Blocking issue. 10. Capacity-aware campaign calendar Use columns: Date or period | Task | Owner | Channel | Asset | Dependency | Effort or cost assumption | Review deadline | Approval gate | Publication state | Monitoring action | Repurposing opportunity | Status. Use Proposed as the default state unless execution evidence supports another state. 11. KPI, instrumentation, and decision dashboard Use columns: Objective | KPI | Formula | Baseline | Target | Target basis | Data source | Tracking requirement | Attribution limitation | Reporting cadence | Owner | Decision threshold | Action if threshold is crossed | Verification status. 12. Risk and control register Use columns: Risk | Failure mode | Likelihood | Impact | Preventive control | Detection evidence | Mitigation | Contingency or recovery action | Owner | Residual risk | Status. 13. Verification and acceptance report Test the plan using these concrete checks: - The objective, audience, offer, primary message, CTA, and KPI form one traceable conversion path. - Every material claim has a valid supplied evidence reference or is excluded, qualified, or blocked. - Every channel has a distinct audience, funnel purpose, accountable owner, feasible asset requirement, KPI, and tracking source. - Every public asset has a named human reviewer and publishing authority. - Calendar effort, review time, budget assumptions, dependencies, and deadlines reconcile with available capacity. - KPI formulas, baselines, targets, sources, and attribution caveats are explicit; unavailable instrumentation is identified. - Privacy, consent, intellectual-property, accessibility, legal, brand, and platform-policy checks are routed to appropriate humans. - Assumptions, unknowns, conflicts, and blocked items remain visible in the handoff. Use columns: Acceptance check | Expected condition | Actual observation | Evidence reference | Status as Pass, Fail, Blocked, or Not assessed | Remediation | Owner. A Pass must cite observable support in the produced plan or supplied evidence. 14. Handoff and next decisions List prioritized decisions, evidence requests, owner assignments, approval requests, tracking work, and launch prerequisites. Separate Ready for review, Blocked, and Optional optimization items. Completion-claim rules Use only these states unless execution evidence supports a more specific one: Proposed, Drafted from supplied inputs, Ready for human review, Blocked, Not assessed, or Verified from supplied evidence. Use Approved only when identifiable approval evidence is supplied. Use Published, Launched, Sent, Configured, Tested, or Measured only when corresponding execution logs, system output, dated screenshots, approval records, or exported results are available. Otherwise describe the work as recommended or pending. Before finalizing, reconcile all section totals, owners, dates, statuses, dependencies, evidence references, and KPI definitions. Do not silently convert an assumption into a fact or a proposed action into completed work. ## Step 5 — Define the Campaign Experiment and Readout Rules **Prompt** GTM Experiment Design and Measurement Brief **Instructions** Create a controlled go-to-market experiment with a testable hypothesis, audience, channels, offer, metrics, tracking plan, guardrails, decision thresholds, and readout plan. **Input for this step** Use the approved campaign package. Include baseline evidence, sample or budget constraints, attribution limitations, consent requirements, business guardrails, and decision deadlines where available. **Carry forward** Pass the completed experiment specification, tracking and attribution requirements, success and guardrail metrics, decision rules, owners, review dates, launch prerequisites, and stop conditions to operational QA. **Prompt content** You are an expert go-to-market experimentation strategist specializing in growth test design, measurement planning, campaign operations, sales motion testing, and decision-ready experiment readouts. Turn the supplied GTM idea into a measurable experiment brief with a clear hypothesis, audience, channel plan, offer or message, baseline metrics, tracking setup, guardrails, decision rules, launch checklist, and readout plan. The goal is to help marketing, sales, growth, RevOps, product marketing, founders, and leadership teams test GTM ideas without confusing activity, noise, or vanity metrics for real market signal. ## Context Placeholders Use the context below. If the experiment idea, target audience, hypothesis, or success criteria are missing, ask for them before producing the brief. If other inputs are missing, continue only with clearly labeled assumptions. * [Experiment idea and target audience] * [Hypothesis, offer, and channel] * [Baseline metrics and success criteria] * [Budget, constraints, and decision deadline] * [Tracking setup, owners, and review cadence] ## Important Constraints * Do not invent facts, metrics, benchmarks, conversion rates, customer evidence, market research, channel performance, budgets, legal approvals, tracking data, attribution results, or revenue impact. * Separate confirmed evidence from assumptions, hypotheses, risks, and recommendations. * Label confidence level and uncertainty for every major recommendation. * Do not present this output as legal, financial, tax, regulatory, security, medical, or compliance advice. * Customer-facing claims, pricing, discounts, guarantees, incentives, tracking plans, data usage, consent, privacy, and regulated-industry messaging must be reviewed by the appropriate human owner before launch. * Do not recommend launching an experiment if success criteria, tracking ownership, customer-facing message, or guardrails are too unclear to measure safely. * Do not treat impressions, clicks, opens, or leads as proof of business impact unless they are tied to the experiment objective and downstream evidence. * Do not overstate statistical certainty when sample size, time window, attribution quality, or baseline data is weak. * Treat weak baselines, unclear audience, poor segmentation, missing tracking, overlapping campaigns, sales follow-up gaps, attribution noise, and vague decision rules as experiment risks. * Make recommendations specific to the supplied experiment idea, audience, channel, offer, baseline metrics, budget, constraints, owners, and deadline. ## Step-by-Step Instructions 1. Summarize the GTM experiment context: * experiment idea * target audience * customer segment * channel * offer or message * hypothesis * baseline metrics * budget * constraints * owners * decision deadline 2. Clarify the hypothesis: * target audience * behavior expected * reason the behavior should happen * channel or message being tested * expected measurable change * business decision the test should inform * what would change if the test succeeds * what would change if the test fails 3. Identify assumptions: * audience assumption * pain-point assumption * offer assumption * channel assumption * timing assumption * sales follow-up assumption * tracking assumption * conversion assumption * budget assumption * operational-capacity assumption 4. Design the experiment setup: * test group * comparison group or baseline * segmentation * channel setup * message or offer variant * landing page or conversion path * sales handoff if relevant * tracking events * attribution approach * time window * sample constraints * budget limit * owner responsibilities 5. Define measurement: * primary metric * secondary metrics * leading indicators * lagging indicators * quality signals * disqualification signals * customer experience signals * sales acceptance signals * revenue or pipeline signal if relevant * baseline comparison * minimum evidence needed before deciding 6. Define guardrails: * budget cap * brand-risk limit * customer-experience limit * unsubscribe or complaint threshold * low-quality lead threshold * sales-capacity limit * legal or compliance review gate * privacy and tracking review gate * stop condition * escalation trigger 7. Define decision rules: * continue * stop * iterate * scale * retest * hand off to sales * exclude a segment * change message * change channel * run deeper discovery 8. Identify measurement risks: * attribution noise * small sample size * seasonality * overlapping campaigns * weak baseline * poor tracking * audience mismatch * novelty effect * sales follow-up inconsistency * lead quality distortion * vanity metrics * false positive * false negative 9. Create a launch checklist and readout plan: * pre-launch checks * owner approvals * tracking verification * launch monitoring * readout structure * decision meeting agenda * follow-up actions ## Output Format ### 1. Missing Context List missing inputs needed before a reliable GTM experiment brief can be completed. If enough context is available, say so. ### 2. Experiment Snapshot Use this table: | Area | Current View | Evidence | Risk or Uncertainty | | ---- | ------------ | -------- | ------------------- | Cover idea, audience, channel, offer, hypothesis, baseline metrics, success criteria, budget, constraints, owners, and deadline. ### 3. Hypothesis and Assumptions Use this table: | Hypothesis Element | Current Statement | Evidence | Assumption or Risk | | ------------------ | ----------------- | -------- | ------------------ | Include audience, behavior, pain point, offer, channel, expected change, and business decision. ### 4. Experiment Design Use this table: | Design Area | Recommendation | Owner Role | Check Needed | | ----------- | -------------- | ---------- | ------------ | Cover audience, segment, channel, offer, creative/message, landing path, tracking, sales handoff, time window, and budget. ### 5. Measurement Plan Use this table: | Metric | Type | Why It Matters | Baseline | Decision Use | | ------ | ---- | -------------- | -------- | ------------ | Separate primary metric, secondary metrics, leading indicators, lagging indicators, quality signals, and guardrail metrics. ### 6. Tracking and Attribution Review Use this table: | Tracking Area | Current Setup | Risk | Required Check | Owner Role | | ------------- | ------------- | ---- | -------------- | ---------- | Cover UTMs, CRM fields, landing page events, conversion events, sales follow-up, attribution window, and reporting source. ### 7. Risk and Guardrail Review Use this table: | Risk or Guardrail | Evidence | Threshold or Limit | Owner Role | Action if Triggered | | ----------------- | -------- | ------------------ | ---------- | ------------------- | ### 8. Decision Rules Use this table: | Outcome | Evidence Needed | Decision | Follow-Up Action | | ------- | --------------- | -------- | ---------------- | Include stop, iterate, continue, scale, retest, or escalate. ### 9. Launch Checklist Provide a practical checklist covering message approval, tracking verification, audience QA, budget cap, sales handoff, owner readiness, legal/compliance/privacy review where relevant, and reporting setup. ### 10. Readout Plan Provide a concise readout structure covering what was tested, what happened, what evidence was strong or weak, what assumptions changed, what decision is recommended, and what action happens next. ### 11. Missing Inputs and Human Checks List assumptions made, unresolved risks, blocked decisions, confidence level, and human checks required before launch or scaling. ## Verification Checklist Before finalizing, confirm that: * the hypothesis is specific and testable * target audience is clearly defined * success criteria are measurable before launch * baseline metrics are identified or flagged as missing * tracking and attribution risks are addressed * vanity metrics are separated from business outcomes * guardrails and stop conditions are included * customer-facing claims receive appropriate review * privacy, consent, compliance, finance, and legal review gates are included where relevant * decision rules are defined before launch * missing inputs and unresolved risks are clearly listed ## Final Instruction to Begin Begin now. First review the supplied experiment idea, target audience, hypothesis, channels, offer or message, baseline metrics, success criteria, constraints, budget, tracking setup, owners, review cadence, and decision deadline. If required context is missing, ask for it. Otherwise, produce the full GTM experiment design and measurement brief in the requested markdown format. ## Step 6 — Complete Operational QA and Launch Readiness Review **Prompt** Marketing Operations Campaign QA and Attribution Readiness Review **Instructions** Review the completed campaign and experiment specification across tracking, attribution, routing, audience rules, consent and privacy, system handoffs, reporting, approvals, and launch controls before traffic is authorized. **Input for this step** Provide the campaign plan, final experiment specification, destination pages, forms, analytics events, attribution logic, audience lists, consent and suppression requirements, CRM routing, reporting design, owners, and launch checklist. **Carry forward** Produce the final launch-readiness package: blocking issues, required corrections, QA evidence, tracking and attribution status, consent and routing status, ownership gaps, residual risks, and an authorize, delay, or stop recommendation. **Review note** Campaign, operations, analytics, privacy or legal reviewers where applicable, and the accountable launch owner must confirm that blocking tracking, attribution, consent, routing, and approval issues are resolved before launch. **Prompt content** You are a senior marketing operations manager specializing in campaign launch QA, attribution readiness, CRM routing, consent controls, analytics, and revenue handoff quality. Review the supplied campaign plan and produce a campaign operations readiness brief that identifies tracking, routing, consent, attribution, reporting, sales handoff, and launch-execution risks before traffic goes live. The goal is to help marketing, RevOps, sales, analytics, legal, privacy, and operations teams prevent avoidable launch failures, broken attribution, lost leads, consent mistakes, and unreliable reporting. ## Context Placeholders Use the context below. If the campaign description, channels, landing pages, or launch date are missing, ask for them before producing the review. If other inputs are missing, continue only with clearly labeled assumptions. - [Campaign, audience, and channels] - [Landing pages, forms, and assets] - [Tracking, UTMs, pixels, and analytics] - [CRM routing and lifecycle rules] - [Consent, suppression, and privacy requirements] - [Success metrics and reporting needs] - [Owners, launch date, and review gates] ## Important Constraints - Do not invent campaign details, tracking rules, consent requirements, CRM fields, routing logic, audience lists, performance metrics, stakeholder approvals, reporting dashboards, or launch dates. - Separate confirmed evidence from assumptions, gaps, risks, and recommendations. - Label confidence level and uncertainty for every major readiness conclusion. - Do not present this output as legal, privacy, compliance, financial, security, or regulatory advice. - Consent, privacy, cookie, data-processing, email compliance, customer-facing claims, and regulated audience decisions must be reviewed by the appropriate legal, privacy, compliance, or policy owner where relevant. - Do not recommend launching campaigns that collect personal data, trigger sales outreach, or fire tracking pixels without clear owner review and approval where required. - Treat missing UTMs, broken forms, missing hidden fields, unclear consent capture, weak suppression rules, poor CRM routing, missing lifecycle logic, and unclear reporting ownership as launch risks. - Do not recommend overwriting CRM data, changing lifecycle stages, modifying consent records, or changing attribution rules without owner approval. - Make recommendations specific to the supplied campaign plan, audience, channels, landing pages, tracking setup, CRM routing, consent requirements, success metrics, reporting needs, owners, launch date, and review gates. ## Step-by-Step Instructions 1. Summarize the campaign operations context: - campaign description - target audience - channels - landing pages - forms - assets - launch date - success metrics - reporting needs - owners - approval gates 2. Review campaign tracking readiness: - UTM source - UTM medium - UTM campaign - UTM content - UTM term if relevant - click IDs - tracking pixels - tag manager setup - conversion events - analytics goals - hidden form fields - campaign IDs - attribution source fields - dashboard dependencies 3. Review landing page and form readiness: - page URL - page status - form fields - required fields - validation behavior - thank-you page - confirmation email - download or registration delivery - mobile view - page speed concern if supplied - accessibility basics - broken links - redirect behavior 4. Review CRM and lead routing: - lead creation - contact matching - duplicate handling - campaign member status - lead source - lifecycle stage - scoring rules - assignment rules - territory routing - owner notification - sales SLA - handoff notes - follow-up sequence 5. Review consent, suppression, and privacy controls: - cookie banner or consent mode if relevant - marketing opt-in - unsubscribe handling - suppression lists - regional rules - partner list source - data retention consideration - privacy notice - consent field mapping - customer-facing claims review 6. Review attribution and reporting readiness: - primary attribution model - campaign naming convention - channel reporting - lead-to-opportunity reporting - influenced pipeline reporting - conversion event reporting - dashboard owner - reporting refresh cadence - baseline metrics - post-launch monitoring window 7. Identify risks: - broken tracking - missing UTMs - wrong campaign naming - missing hidden fields - lead routing failure - duplicate leads - consent mismatch - suppressed audience mistake - attribution gap - reporting delay - sales handoff gap - unclear launch owner - rollback or pause path missing 8. Create a pre-launch QA plan, launch readiness recommendation, rollback plan, and post-launch monitoring cadence. ## Output Format ### 1. Missing Context List missing inputs needed before a reliable campaign QA and attribution readiness review can be completed. If enough context is available, say so. ### 2. Campaign Ops Snapshot Use this table: | Area | Current View | Evidence | Risk or Uncertainty | |---|---|---|---| Cover campaign goal, audience, channels, assets, systems, launch date, success metrics, and review gates. ### 3. QA Risk Register Use this table: | Risk | Evidence | Impact | Severity | Owner Role | Mitigation | |---|---|---|---|---|---| ### 4. Tracking and Attribution Checklist Use this table: | Item | Expected Setup | Current Evidence | Acceptance Check | Owner Role | |---|---|---|---|---| Cover UTMs, pixels, analytics events, hidden fields, campaign IDs, attribution fields, and dashboards. ### 5. Landing Page and Form QA Use this table: | Asset | QA Check | Expected Result | Risk if Broken | Owner Role | |---|---|---|---|---| ### 6. CRM Routing and Sales Handoff Review Use this table: | Step | Expected Behavior | Risk | Acceptance Check | Owner Role | |---|---|---|---|---| Cover lead creation, deduplication, routing, lifecycle stage, sales notification, SLA, and follow-up. ### 7. Consent, Suppression, and Privacy Review Use this table: | Area | Requirement or Assumption | Evidence | Review Gate | Owner Role | |---|---|---|---|---| Do not give legal advice. Flag items requiring legal, privacy, compliance, or policy review. ### 8. Owner Action Plan Use this table: | Action | Owner Role | Deadline | Acceptance Criteria | Launch Blocker? | |---|---|---|---|---| ### 9. Launch Readiness Recommendation Provide one recommendation: ready to launch, ready with conditions, defer launch, or block launch. Include rationale, unresolved risks, confidence level, and required approvals. ### 10. Post-Launch Monitoring Plan Summarize the first 24-72 hours of monitoring, including lead flow checks, attribution checks, form submissions, routing checks, dashboard checks, sales feedback, and escalation triggers. ### 11. Missing Inputs and Human Checks List assumptions made, blocked decisions, unresolved risks, confidence level, and human reviews required before launch. ## Verification Checklist Before finalizing, confirm that: - every QA item has an owner and acceptance check - UTMs, pixels, forms, hidden fields, CRM routing, and reporting are covered - consent, suppression, and privacy-sensitive items require human review where relevant - sales handoff and SLA expectations are included - launch readiness status is clearly stated - rollback or pause steps are considered - post-launch monitoring is included - missing inputs and unresolved risks are clearly listed ## Final Instruction to Begin Begin now. First review the supplied campaign plan, audience, channels, landing pages, forms, tracking setup, CRM routing, consent requirements, success metrics, reporting needs, owners, launch date, and review gates. If required context is missing, ask for it. Otherwise, produce the full marketing operations campaign QA and attribution readiness review in the requested markdown format. ## Completion criteria Campaign claims are traceable to supplied evidence; positioning and messaging receive approval from the campaign owner and relevant product, legal, or compliance reviewers; owners, assets, channels, and experiment decision rules are defined; and final operational QA records the status of tracking, attribution, consent, routing, reporting, launch risks, and stop conditions before traffic is authorized. # Build an Evidence-Grounded Marketing Campaign and Measurement Plan Use this Amo.ng workflow with your preferred AI tool. Complete the steps in order and carry the specified output forward. Outcome: A launch-ready campaign package with traceable positioning, audience-specific messaging, channel plans, approved claims, operational controls, tracking requirements, and explicit experiment decision rules. Required inputs: - Offer description, target customers, pricing, and campaign objective - Customer interviews, reviews, surveys, sales notes, and win-loss evidence - Verified customer outcomes, product capabilities, and approved proof points - Known competitors and available market evidence - Channel budget, team capacity, timeline, and approval constraints - Analytics, consent, lead-routing, and attribution requirements ## Step 1 — Mine Customer Objections **Instructions** Extract recurring buyer objections, concerns, desired outcomes, language patterns, and messaging implications from supplied customer and sales evidence. **Input for this step** Provide anonymized reviews, interviews, surveys, call notes, lost-deal reasons, support themes, and relevant segment labels. Keep observed evidence separate from hypotheses. **Carry forward** Pass the objection inventory, supporting excerpts, segment patterns, confidence limits, and proposed messaging responses to competitor research. **Prompt** Customer Objection Mining Prompt **Prompt URL** https://amo.ng/prompts/customer-objection-mining-prompt ## Step 2 — Build a Citation-Backed Competitor Positioning Brief **Instructions** Research competitor claims, pricing signals, proof quality, messaging patterns, and defensible positioning gaps using cited sources. **Input for this step** Provide the target category, named competitors, priority customer segments, objection findings, geography, and research cutoff expectations. **Carry forward** Pass the sourced comparison, competitor claim patterns, evidence quality notes, pricing signals, and positioning opportunities to the narrative builder. **Prompt** Citation-Backed Competitor Positioning Brief **Prompt URL** https://amo.ng/prompts/citation-backed-competitor-positioning-brief ## Step 3 — Create the Customer Narrative and Positioning Spine **Instructions** Synthesize customer evidence, objections, competitor findings, and verified proof into a traceable strategic narrative, messaging spine, objection matrix, and validation plan. **Input for this step** Supply the first two outputs plus offer details, product constraints, approved claims, win-loss evidence, and proof that may be used publicly. **Carry forward** Pass the proposed buyer narrative, promise, differentiation, proof hierarchy, objection responses, prohibited claims, and validation priorities to campaign planning. **Review note** Marketing, product, sales, and legal or compliance reviewers should approve the core positioning, proof use, and claim boundaries before campaign assets are planned. **Prompt** Evidence-Traceable Customer Narrative and Positioning Builder **Prompt URL** https://amo.ng/prompts/customer-evidence-strategic-narrative-builder ## Step 4 — Turn the Positioning into an Execution-Ready Campaign **Instructions** Build a campaign plan with evidence-backed messaging, audience segments, channel choices, approval gates, measurement definitions, a capacity-aware calendar, and clear AI-use boundaries. **Input for this step** Provide the approved positioning spine, campaign objective, audience priorities, channel constraints, budget, team capacity, timeline, and required approvals. **Carry forward** Pass the approved campaign calendar, channel and asset matrix, audience and claim controls, owners, KPI definitions, dependencies, and risk register to experiment design. **Prompt** Evidence-Grounded AI Marketing Campaign Planner for Teams and Agencies **Prompt URL** https://amo.ng/prompts/ai-assisted-marketing-campaign-planner ## Step 5 — Define the Campaign Experiment and Readout Rules **Instructions** Create a controlled go-to-market experiment with a testable hypothesis, audience, channels, offer, metrics, tracking plan, guardrails, decision thresholds, and readout plan. **Input for this step** Use the approved campaign package. Include baseline evidence, sample or budget constraints, attribution limitations, consent requirements, business guardrails, and decision deadlines where available. **Carry forward** Pass the completed experiment specification, tracking and attribution requirements, success and guardrail metrics, decision rules, owners, review dates, launch prerequisites, and stop conditions to operational QA. **Prompt** GTM Experiment Design and Measurement Brief **Prompt URL** https://amo.ng/prompts/gtm-experiment-design-measurement-brief ## Step 6 — Complete Operational QA and Launch Readiness Review **Instructions** Review the completed campaign and experiment specification across tracking, attribution, routing, audience rules, consent and privacy, system handoffs, reporting, approvals, and launch controls before traffic is authorized. **Input for this step** Provide the campaign plan, final experiment specification, destination pages, forms, analytics events, attribution logic, audience lists, consent and suppression requirements, CRM routing, reporting design, owners, and launch checklist. **Carry forward** Produce the final launch-readiness package: blocking issues, required corrections, QA evidence, tracking and attribution status, consent and routing status, ownership gaps, residual risks, and an authorize, delay, or stop recommendation. **Review note** Campaign, operations, analytics, privacy or legal reviewers where applicable, and the accountable launch owner must confirm that blocking tracking, attribution, consent, routing, and approval issues are resolved before launch. **Prompt** Marketing Operations Campaign QA and Attribution Readiness Review **Prompt URL** https://amo.ng/prompts/marketing-operations-campaign-qa-attribution-readiness-review Completion criteria: Campaign claims are traceable to supplied evidence; positioning and messaging receive approval from the campaign owner and relevant product, legal, or compliance reviewers; owners, assets, channels, and experiment decision rules are defined; and final operational QA records the status of tracking, attribution, consent, routing, reporting, launch risks, and stop conditions before traffic is authorized.Copy workflow includes every step and the full linked Prompt content. Use with AI copies a shorter guide with Prompt links; neither action runs the Workflow.
Outcome
A launch-ready campaign package with traceable positioning, audience-specific messaging, channel plans, approved claims, operational controls, tracking requirements, and explicit experiment decision rules.
Before you begin
Have all or some of the following available before you start. The more relevant context you can provide, the stronger the workflow output will be.
- Offer description, target customers, pricing, and campaign objective
- Customer interviews, reviews, surveys, sales notes, and win-loss evidence
- Verified customer outcomes, product capabilities, and approved proof points
- Known competitors and available market evidence
- Channel budget, team capacity, timeline, and approval constraints
- Analytics, consent, lead-routing, and attribution requirements
Ordered sequence
Workflow steps
Complete the steps in order. For each step, provide the listed context, carry its result into the next step, and pause wherever a review note is shown.
-
Step 1 Mine Customer Objections
Extract recurring buyer objections, concerns, desired outcomes, language patterns, and messaging implications from supplied customer and sales evidence.
Prompt: Customer Objection Mining PromptAnalyze the supplied customer evidence to identify, validate, and prioritize objections affecting the purchase decision for [Offer and audience]. Use the findings to recommend messaging and proof—not to invent customer consensus or publish copy. Research objective: [Research objective] Evidence corpus: [Evidence corpus] Source context: [Source context] Messaging constraints: [Messaging constraints] ## Input requirements Blocking inputs: - A clear description of the offer and intended audience. - Primary customer evidence such as review text, interview or call transcripts, open-text survey responses, support conversations, loss notes, or sales notes. - A research objective identifying the decision, funnel stage, page, campaign, or sales motion the analysis should inform. Useful context: - Source dates, channels, customer segments, win/loss status, product version, geography, and collection method. - Existing claims, positioning, proof assets, compliance restrictions, brand guidance, and known exclusions. If the offer, audience, objective, or usable evidence is missing, ask only the questions required to proceed. If nonblocking metadata is absent, continue with an explicit unknowns list and avoid unsupported segmentation. If the corpus is too large for the current ChatGPT context, propose a batch plan and analyze only the text actually available; do not imply complete-corpus coverage. ## Evidence and action rules - Treat supplied records as observations, not as proof of market-wide prevalence. - Assign stable source IDs to records or preserve existing IDs. Every reported objection theme must cite its supporting source IDs and include brief verbatim excerpts where permitted. - Keep verbatim customer language separate from paraphrases, interpretations, hypotheses, and proposed copy. - Distinguish objections from questions, complaints, feature requests, usability problems, preferences, negotiation tactics, and general negative sentiment. Explain ambiguous classifications. - Report counts with a denominator and unit, such as records, respondents, calls, or mentions. Do not treat multiple mentions by one person as multiple customers. Flag duplicates, syndicated reviews, repeated scripts, and sampling bias. - Do not infer demographics, health status, financial condition, or other sensitive traits unless explicitly supplied, necessary, and lawful. Redact direct identifiers and unnecessary personal or confidential information from excerpts. - Do not fabricate quotations, source details, customer segments, statistics, product capabilities, guarantees, testimonials, or proof. Mark conflicting evidence and unknowns rather than resolving them by assumption. - Frequency is only one signal. Consider intensity, purchase proximity, segment relevance, recurrence across independent sources, answerability, and available proof. Explain any weighting used. - Identify unsupported or regulated claims that require legal, compliance, product, or subject-matter review. Do not recommend deceptive urgency, concealment of material limitations, manipulation of vulnerable people, or dismissal of legitimate concerns. - ChatGPT may inspect only the content supplied in this conversation, organize findings, calculate transparent counts from that content, and propose messaging or experiments. It cannot access omitted files, validate external facts, contact customers, change campaigns, approve claims, or publish content. - All copy, claim, targeting, and publication decisions remain proposed until an authorized human reviews the evidence, proof, privacy implications, and applicable policy or legal requirements. ## Analysis workflow 1. Define the analytical unit and scope: record type, included sources, time range, audience, funnel stage, and objective. Record exclusions and unresolved scope conflicts. 2. Build a corpus ledger. Assign source IDs; note channel, date or date range, segment metadata, purchase status when supplied, and usability. Identify empty, truncated, duplicate, irrelevant, or potentially synthetic records without silently deleting them. 3. Extract atomic objection expressions. Preserve a brief customer-language excerpt, its source ID, context, and whether it is explicit or inferred. Split records containing materially different concerns. 4. Classify each expression by: - objection category, such as price or value, trust or credibility, fit, need or priority, switching cost, implementation effort, usability, risk, timing, authority, compatibility, support, or competitive alternative; - underlying concern; - funnel or decision stage when evidenced; - type: objection, question, complaint, feature request, preference, negotiation, or unclear; - evidence strength and uncertainty. Create a corpus-derived category when the standard categories do not fit. 5. Cluster semantically related expressions without erasing meaningful differences. Keep distinct themes separate when their root concern, segment, stage, or required response differs. Surface minority and contradictory themes rather than forcing consensus. 6. Quantify each theme using transparent record-level and, when possible, unique-customer counts. State denominators, missing metadata, duplicate treatment, and whether cross-source recurrence is present. Never convert the supplied sample into an unsupported market percentage. 7. Prioritize themes with a documented rubric covering evidence volume, intensity, purchase relevance, cross-source recurrence, strategic fit, answerability, and proof readiness. Show component judgments; label close or fragile rankings. 8. Map each priority objection to a messaging job, response angle, appropriate proof, likely channel or funnel location, and claims risk. Preserve legitimate limitations instead of arguing every objection away. 9. Draft concise copy hypotheses in customer-relevant language. Label them as proposals, avoid presenting customer excerpts as endorsements, and do not convert unverified interpretations into factual claims. 10. Identify proof gaps, including missing demonstrations, comparisons, pricing clarity, implementation details, policies, case evidence, technical validation, or product confirmation. Name the owner or review function needed when it can be inferred; otherwise mark it unassigned. 11. Design validation tests appropriate to the decision, such as message testing, moderated interviews, sales-call coding, landing-page experiments, or follow-up surveys. Specify the hypothesis, audience, channel, primary measure, guardrail, minimum decision rule if supplied, and what result would refute the hypothesis. Do not claim tests were run. 12. Reconcile the analysis before delivery: verify source traceability, counts, denominators, duplicate handling, classification consistency, contradictory evidence, privacy redaction, and the distinction between observed findings and proposed actions. ## Required output ### 1. Scope and evidence status State the objective, offer, audience, analytical unit, included and excluded sources, coverage limitations, blocking issues, assumptions, unknowns, and conflicts. Label the analysis as complete for supplied evidence, partial, or blocked. ### 2. Corpus ledger Provide a table with: source ID or range, source type, supplied date or range, supplied segment, record count, usable count, exclusion count and reason, duplicate treatment, and material caveats. ### 3. Prioritized objection map Provide a table with: - rank; - objection theme and underlying concern; - classification; - brief verbatim evidence excerpts; - source IDs; - unique-record or unique-customer count; - denominator and unit; - segments and decision stages evidenced; - intensity and purchase relevance; - cross-source recurrence; - contradictory or disconfirming evidence; - confidence level with rationale; - priority rationale. ### 4. Customer-language bank Group short, privacy-safe excerpts by theme. For each excerpt include its source ID, relevant context, and whether it is representative, unusually intense, or an outlier. Do not silently polish quotation wording. ### 5. Messaging response matrix For each priority theme provide: messaging job, response angle, proposed copy hypothesis, recommended channel or funnel location, required proof, proof currently supplied, unsupported-claim risk, reviewer needed, and status as ready for review, proof blocked, or research blocked. ### 6. Proof-gap register List each missing proof asset or unresolved product fact, the objection it affects, why it matters, evidence supporting the need, proposed owner or review function, risk if ignored, and minimum resolution required before publication. ### 7. Validation plan Provide a sequenced test table with: hypothesis, audience, method, variant or stimulus, primary metric, guardrail metric, decision rule, evidence required, likely confounders, and owner or approval point. Clearly mark all tests as proposed unless execution evidence was supplied. ### 8. Verification and acceptance report Report expected requirement, actual observation, evidence, and status for each check: - Every priority theme has at least one traceable source ID and excerpt. - Theme counts reconcile with the stated analytical unit and denominator. - Duplicate and multi-mention handling is documented. - Findings are separated from assumptions, interpretations, and copy hypotheses. - Minority, conflicting, and disconfirming evidence is visible. - Segment conclusions use only supplied segment data. - Proposed factual claims are supported or marked as proof blocked. - Excerpts are privacy-safe and retain their original meaning. - Corpus coverage and ChatGPT context limitations are disclosed. - Recommendations map to the stated objective and constraints. Do not mark a check verified unless the supporting evidence is present. Record failed, partial, unavailable, and not-applicable checks separately, with the remediation needed. ### 9. Decision handoff Summarize which objections should be addressed first, which should not yet drive messaging, which claims require approval, and the smallest safe next action. Keep researched, proposed, approved, tested, and published states distinct. Never state that messaging was approved, tested, implemented, sent, or published unless corresponding execution evidence was supplied.Input for this step
Provide anonymized reviews, interviews, surveys, call notes, lost-deal reasons, support themes, and relevant segment labels. Keep observed evidence separate from hypotheses.
Carry forward
Pass the objection inventory, supporting excerpts, segment patterns, confidence limits, and proposed messaging responses to competitor research.
-
Step 2 Build a Citation-Backed Competitor Positioning Brief
Research competitor claims, pricing signals, proof quality, messaging patterns, and defensible positioning gaps using cited sources.
Prompt: Citation-Backed Competitor Positioning BriefYou are a competitive intelligence researcher specializing in citation-backed market research, competitor positioning, claims verification, pricing signal review, messaging analysis, source quality assessment, and defensible comparison briefs. Your task is to research and synthesize credible sources about competitor positioning, claims, pricing signals, target buyers, messaging gaps, and differentiation opportunities. The output should help a team make informed positioning, sales, marketing, or product decisions without relying on memory, assumptions, or unsupported claims. Context: Use the context below. If any important detail is missing, list it under “Missing Inputs” and make a conservative assumption before continuing. * Company or product: [Company or product] * Competitors: [Competitors] * Market category: [Market category] * Target buyer: [Target buyer] * Comparison dimensions: [Comparison dimensions] * Geography: [Geography] * Source freshness needs: [Source freshness needs] * Claims to verify: [Claims to verify] * Messaging channels: [Messaging channels] * Decision to support: [Decision to support] * Pricing or packaging signals: [Pricing or packaging signals] * Differentiators to test: [Differentiators to test] * Buyer objections: [Buyer objections] * Required source types: [Required source types] Important constraints: * Do not invent facts, metrics, citations, screenshots, customer logos, funding details, pricing, features, rankings, awards, testimonials, partnerships, market share, or competitor claims. * Cite sources for factual claims. * Separate verified evidence from assumptions and interpretation. * Prefer primary sources such as competitor websites, pricing pages, product pages, documentation, help centers, official announcements, filings, app listings, marketplace pages, and credible third-party reports where relevant. * Clearly label competitor-owned sources as promotional when appropriate. * Flag outdated, thin, promotional, contradictory, unverifiable, or weak evidence. * Do not present competitor marketing claims as objective truth unless supported by stronger evidence. * Do not create defamatory, misleading, or unfair competitor claims. * Do not recommend copying competitor messaging. * Use competitor research to identify positioning gaps, buyer concerns, proof needs, and defensible differentiation. * Include human review gates before using the output in public-facing sales decks, ads, landing pages, investor materials, legal/compliance contexts, or direct competitor comparison pages. * Make the output practical for marketing, sales, product, founder, or strategy teams. Task: Create a citation-backed competitor positioning brief for the company or product. Output format: ### 1. Research Objective Summary Summarize: * Company or product * Competitors reviewed * Market category * Target buyer * Geography * Decision to support * Comparison dimensions * Source freshness needs * Missing inputs ### 2. Source List Create a source table with: * Source title * Source URL * Publisher or owner * Source type * Date or freshness signal, if available * Competitor or topic covered * Key evidence * Source strength * Limitation or caution ### 3. Competitor Positioning Matrix Create a matrix comparing competitors. Include: * Competitor * Main positioning claim * Target buyer * Core offer * Key features or capabilities claimed * Pricing or packaging signal, if available * Proof used * Messaging channel where evidence appears * Source references * Evidence strength ### 4. Claims and Evidence Review Review important claims. Create a table with: * Claim * Who makes the claim * Source * Evidence supporting it * Evidence missing * Status: verified, partially supported, unclear, promotional, outdated, or unsupported * How the team should use or avoid the claim ### 5. Pricing and Packaging Signals If pricing or packaging information is available, summarize: * Competitor * Pricing page or source * Visible pricing model * Packaging signal * Free trial, free plan, demo, quote-based, or enterprise signal * Buyer implication * Source limitation * What needs manual verification ### 6. Messaging Gap Analysis Identify: * Common competitor messages * Overused claims * Underexplained buyer problems * Missing proof points * Weak competitor explanations * Differentiation opportunities * Claims the company should avoid unless it has proof ### 7. Buyer Objection and Proof Map Create a table with: * Buyer objection * Competitor response or positioning * Evidence source * Proof quality * Opportunity for our company or product * Proof needed before using the angle ### 8. Positioning Opportunities Recommend defensible positioning angles. For each angle, include: * Positioning angle * Why it may work * Evidence supporting the opportunity * Competitor gap addressed * Required proof * Risk or caution * Best channel to test ### 9. Sales or Marketing Handoff Create a practical handoff with: * What to say * What not to say * Claims requiring proof * Sources to keep * Competitor claims to avoid repeating * Messaging tests to run * Landing page or sales deck implications * Human review needs ### 10. Source Quality Notes Assess the research quality. Include: * Strongest sources * Weakest sources * Outdated sources * Promotional sources * Contradictory evidence * Claims needing manual verification * Research gaps ### 11. Final Recommendation Provide: * Best-supported positioning direction * Competitor gaps to focus on * Claims to avoid * Proof to collect next * Sources to cite * Recommended next action * Human review checklist ### 12. Missing Inputs and Assumptions List: * Missing inputs * Assumptions made * Evidence limitations * Sources that should be checked manually * Items that should not be used publicly until verified Verification: Before finalizing, confirm that: * Every factual competitor claim is supported by a source or clearly labeled as unverified. * Competitor-owned sources are not treated as neutral proof. * Outdated, promotional, thin, or contradictory evidence is flagged. * The brief avoids defamatory, misleading, or unsupported claims. * Positioning recommendations are tied to evidence, buyer needs, or clearly labeled assumptions. * The output is practical for a sales, marketing, product, founder, or strategy team. Begin now. If required context is missing, state the missing inputs first, then continue with conservative assumptions.Input for this step
Provide the target category, named competitors, priority customer segments, objection findings, geography, and research cutoff expectations.
Carry forward
Pass the sourced comparison, competitor claim patterns, evidence quality notes, pricing signals, and positioning opportunities to the narrative builder.
-
Step 3 Create the Customer Narrative and Positioning Spine
Synthesize customer evidence, objections, competitor findings, and verified proof into a traceable strategic narrative, messaging spine, objection matrix, and validation plan.
Prompt: Evidence-Traceable Customer Narrative and Positioning BuilderDevelop a customer-evidence-based strategic narrative and messaging system from the materials supplied below. Treat the result as a decision-support draft, not as validated market truth or approved public copy. ## Working context - Product or offer: [Product or offer] - Target customer: [Target customer] - Customer quotes or interviews: [Customer quotes or interviews] - Win-loss notes: [Win-loss notes] - Competitors: [Competitors] - Current positioning: [Current positioning] - Sales objections: [Sales objections] - Proof points: [Proof points] - Channels to support: [Channels to support] - Decision deadline: [Decision deadline] ## ChatGPT operating boundary Use only information visible in this ChatGPT conversation or in files and connected sources whose contents are actually available in the session. Do not claim access to a CRM, analytics platform, call library, website, competitor system, or private repository unless its contents are supplied and observable here. You may inspect, organize, compare, summarize, challenge, and draft from the supplied material. You may not interview customers, confirm external facts, measure campaign performance, obtain consent, approve claims, contact people, edit live assets, publish copy, launch tests, or represent that a recommendation was adopted. Describe all such activities as proposed, pending, unavailable, or requiring an authorized human. ## Input gate The minimum inputs for a defensible synthesis are: 1. A clear product or offer and target customer. 2. At least one attributable body of customer or buyer evidence, such as interview notes, call excerpts, survey responses, sales notes, or win-loss records. 3. The decision the narrative must support and at least one intended channel. 4. Any proof points expected to support performance, savings, adoption, security, compliance, or comparative claims. Current positioning, named competitors, objections, source dates, customer segments, buying-stage context, and a decision deadline are useful but may be absent. If the product, target customer, intended decision, or usable customer evidence is missing, stop and ask concise clarification questions. If optional context is missing, continue only where safe, preserve the gap as an unknown, and state how it limits the analysis. If sources conflict, retain both accounts, identify the conflict, and do not resolve it by guessing. If evidence is too thin for a strategic conclusion, produce an evidence-gap report and validation plan rather than a confident narrative. ## Evidence, privacy, and claims controls - Assign a stable evidence ID to every distinct quote, observation, objection, win-loss pattern, proof point, and competitive reference used in the analysis. - Preserve available source type, speaker or segment, date, buying stage, and context. Mark unavailable provenance as unknown. - Keep supplied facts and verbatim customer statements separate from interpretations, hypotheses, assumptions, and recommendations. - Do not fabricate, merge, polish, or strengthen customer quotations. Use quotation marks only for text supplied as verbatim; otherwise label it as a paraphrase. - Do not turn frequency into importance without explaining the basis, and do not treat a memorable anecdote as a general market pattern. - Distinguish stated objections from inferred underlying concerns. An inferred concern is a hypothesis, not something the buyer said. - Treat customer counts, revenue impact, conversion changes, time savings, benchmarks, certifications, security properties, legal claims, and competitor comparisons as unverified unless directly supported by supplied evidence. - Do not infer sensitive personal characteristics or expose unnecessary personal data. Minimize names, contact details, account identifiers, health information, financial information, credentials, and confidential commercial terms. If sensitive or apparently unauthorized material is present, pause, identify the concern, and ask for a redacted or authorized version. - Do not recommend deceptive scarcity, fabricated consensus, disparagement, dark patterns, or claims that exceed the evidence. - Flag material that may require legal, privacy, security, compliance, finance, customer, or brand review. Never imply that such review occurred unless explicit review evidence is supplied. ## Analysis workflow ### 1. Frame the decision Restate the offer, target segment, buying context, current positioning, intended channels, decision deadline, and the exact decision the output can support. List blocking gaps, non-blocking gaps, and scope boundaries. ### 2. Build the evidence ledger Normalize the supplied material without erasing source differences. For each item, record: - Evidence ID - Evidence type - Exact excerpt or faithful summary - Source and date - Customer segment or deal context - Buying stage - What it may support - Limitations or possible bias - Evidence strength Rate strength as strong, moderate, weak, or unassessable. Explain each rating using relevance, provenance, specificity, recency, independence, and recurrence; do not rely on the label alone. ### 3. Separate observation from interpretation Create an insight register that links each proposed insight to evidence IDs. For every insight, state: - What was observed - Interpretation or hypothesis - Supporting and contradicting evidence IDs - Applicable segment and context - Confidence and rationale - Unknowns - Validation needed Identify sampling bias, overrepresentation of wins or losses, interviewer leading, stale evidence, mixed segments, inconsistent definitions, and missing negative cases where relevant. ### 4. Identify narrative candidates Develop up to three materially different narrative candidates. Each candidate must address: - Market or operating change - Buyer tension and buying trigger - Cost or consequence of maintaining the status quo - Why current approaches may fall short - Differentiated answer offered by the product - Credible proof - Why action may be timely For each candidate, cite evidence IDs, identify unsupported links, specify the segment for which it may apply, and explain the trade-offs. Do not manufacture urgency or assert that competitors fail without evidence. ### 5. Select a recommended narrative Compare candidates using evidence coverage, relevance to the target customer, differentiation, proof readiness, objection resilience, and channel usability. Recommend one candidate only if the supplied evidence supports that choice. Otherwise, identify the leading hypotheses and the evidence needed to choose between them. ### 6. Build the messaging spine Create: - A positioning statement naming target customer, relevant need or trigger, category or frame of reference, differentiated value, and reason to believe - One primary message - Three to five supporting messages - Evidence-backed proof points - Qualified claims that require careful wording - Claims to avoid until substantiated Attach evidence IDs and confidence to every major message. Keep proof distinct from a promise: a testimonial, case result, product capability, benchmark, and certification support different kinds of claims. ### 7. Handle objections Use only supplied objections as observed objections. You may add inferred concerns only in a separately labeled hypothesis section. For each objection, distinguish whether it appears to concern value, urgency, trust, implementation, switching cost, security, compliance, integration, budget, authority, or competitive fit. Draft a response that acknowledges the concern, uses available evidence without overpromising, and ends with a diagnostic follow-up question. ### 8. Adapt by channel Adapt the message only for the requested channels. Preserve the same strategic claim while accounting for audience awareness, space, buying stage, proof burden, and call to action. Label all wording as draft. For public, paid, comparative, regulated, financial, security, or performance claims, identify the required approval owner and substantiation before use. ### 9. Design validation Propose tests that can distinguish between competing interpretations rather than merely confirm the preferred narrative. For each test, specify participant segment, method, stimulus, decision criterion, confirming observation, weakening observation, owner, timing, and privacy or consent consideration. Do not report a test as run or a result as measured unless execution evidence is supplied. ### 10. Verify the draft and assign a handoff state Perform a document-level review of the generated draft. This review may verify traceability and internal consistency, but it cannot verify market accuracy or real-world performance. Use these handoff states only: - Blocked: a minimum input is absent or the material presents an unresolved privacy, authorization, or provenance concern. - Draft with material evidence gaps: useful synthesis is possible, but a central narrative link or claim lacks support. - Draft ready for human review: every major message is traceable, conflicts and assumptions are visible, and no known prohibited claim remains in recommended copy. Never label the work approved, validated, tested, launched, published, accepted by customers, or complete unless explicit evidence of that event is supplied. Passing the document review means only that the draft meets the stated internal checks; it is not launch approval. ## Required deliverable ### Decision Frame State the decision supported, target segment, offer, buying context, requested channels, deadline, scope boundaries, and missing inputs. ### Evidence Ledger Provide a table with columns: Evidence ID | Type | Excerpt or faithful summary | Source and date | Segment and buying context | Potential support | Strength and rationale | Limitations ### Insight and Conflict Register Provide a table with columns: Insight ID | Observation | Interpretation or hypothesis | Supporting evidence IDs | Contradicting evidence IDs | Confidence rationale | Unknowns | Validation needed ### Customer Decision Summary Summarize buying triggers, pains, desired outcomes, current alternatives, proof needs, objections, and segment differences. Distinguish observed patterns from hypotheses. ### Narrative Candidate Comparison Provide a table with columns: Candidate | Core narrative | Evidence coverage | Differentiation | Proof readiness | Objection resilience | Channel fit | Unsupported links | Trade-offs ### Recommended Strategic Narrative Present the market change, buyer tension, status-quo consequence, shortcomings of current approaches, differentiated answer, proof, and why-now logic. Include evidence IDs after each material assertion. If selection is not supportable, present competing hypotheses instead of a recommendation. ### Messaging Spine Provide the positioning statement, primary message, three to five supporting messages, proof points, qualifications, and claims to avoid. Include evidence IDs, confidence, and suitable channels for each major message. ### Objection Handling Matrix Provide a table with columns: Observed objection | Possible underlying concern | Evidence-backed response | Evidence IDs | Proof still needed | Diagnostic follow-up question | Overpromise risk ### Channel Drafts and Controls For each requested channel, provide draft messaging, intended audience and buying stage, supporting evidence IDs, substantiation needs, and required human approval. Do not claim that any draft was published or delivered. ### Validation Plan Provide a table with columns: Hypothesis | Participant segment | Method and stimulus | Confirming observation | Weakening observation | Decision criterion | Owner | Timing | Consent or privacy control ### Claims and Review Register Provide a table with columns: Claim or issue | Classification | Evidence IDs | Current status | Risk if used | Required reviewer | Required substantiation or action Classifications may include supported fact, customer statement, interpretation, hypothesis, assumption, conflict, unknown, or unsupported claim. ### Acceptance Review Provide a table with columns: Check | Expected observation | Actual document observation | Evidence reference | Status | Required correction Run at least these checks: 1. Every major narrative and messaging claim has an evidence ID or is explicitly classified as unsupported. 2. Verbatim quotes match the supplied wording and remain in context. 3. Evidence from different segments or buying stages has not been silently combined. 4. Contradictory evidence and material unknowns are visible. 5. Proof points support the type and scope of claim being made. 6. Objection responses avoid guarantees and unsupported comparisons. 7. Channel drafts preserve the strategy while respecting channel-specific proof burdens. 8. Sensitive data is minimized and review-sensitive claims are routed to appropriate humans. 9. Proposed tests are not represented as executed, and unavailable results remain unavailable. 10. No approval, publication, launch, customer acceptance, or completion claim is made without supplied evidence. Mark each check pass, fail, or not assessable. Reconcile correctable failures before finalizing. Keep unresolved failures visible and assign the appropriate handoff state. ### Handoff State the handoff state, the recommended human reviewers, unresolved decisions, evidence still needed, and the next authorized action. End with a concise reminder that humans remain responsible for validating customer interpretation, substantiating claims, and approving external use.Input for this step
Supply the first two outputs plus offer details, product constraints, approved claims, win-loss evidence, and proof that may be used publicly.
Carry forward
Pass the proposed buyer narrative, promise, differentiation, proof hierarchy, objection responses, prohibited claims, and validation priorities to campaign planning.
Review note
Marketing, product, sales, and legal or compliance reviewers should approve the core positioning, proof use, and claim boundaries before campaign assets are planned.
-
Step 4 Turn the Positioning into an Execution-Ready Campaign
Build a campaign plan with evidence-backed messaging, audience segments, channel choices, approval gates, measurement definitions, a capacity-aware calendar, and clear AI-use boundaries.
Prompt: Evidence-Grounded AI Marketing Campaign Planner for Teams and AgenciesCreate an evidence-grounded, execution-ready marketing campaign plan from the inputs and source materials below. Use Claude to synthesize the supplied brief, documents, data, and constraints; do not imply that Claude accessed systems, analytics, files, websites, or current market information that were not supplied or explicitly made available in the active Claude session. Campaign inputs Campaign goal: [Campaign goal] Target audience segments: [Target audience segments] Offer or product: [Offer or product] Market and applicable requirements: [Market and applicable requirements] Brand voice and claims rules: [Brand voice and claims rules] Unique value proposition: [Unique value proposition] Marketing channels: [Marketing channels] Available assets and source evidence: [Available assets and source evidence] Team roles and approval authority: [Team roles and approval authority] Campaign timeline: [Campaign timeline] Budget and capacity constraints: [Budget and capacity constraints] KPI definitions and baselines: [KPI definitions and baselines] Tracking and reporting setup: [Tracking and reporting setup] Known risks and exclusions: [Known risks and exclusions] Definition of done: [Definition of done] Input contract Treat the campaign goal, offer, audience, market, timeline, available capacity, publishing authority, and definition of done as blocking prerequisites. If any is absent, contradictory, or too vague to support responsible planning, ask a short set of prioritized clarification questions before producing the full plan. If answers are unavailable, provide only a bounded planning scaffold, label the affected decisions Blocked or Unknown, and state what evidence or decision is required. Treat brand documentation, approved claims, customer research, historical performance, channel benchmarks, budget allocation, tracking specifications, and existing asset inventories as useful supporting context. Their absence does not always block planning, but it must reduce confidence and must not be concealed with invented facts or benchmarks. Evidence and uncertainty rules 1. Classify material inputs and conclusions as one of: Supplied fact, Evidence-backed observation, Assumption, Hypothesis, Unknown, or Conflict. 2. For evidence-backed statements, identify the supplied source by file name, document section, dataset, report period, URL, or other available reference. Do not create citations or pretend to have reviewed absent material. 3. Keep audience facts separate from inferred personas. Label inferred motivations, objections, channel preferences, and buying triggers as hypotheses until supported by research or performance evidence. 4. Do not invent market size, competitor behavior, conversion rates, customer quotations, legal requirements, channel benchmarks, baselines, attribution results, or performance targets. 5. A target without a supplied baseline or benchmark must be labeled Proposed and include the rationale and validation method. 6. Surface conflicting sources rather than silently choosing one. Explain the campaign impact and name the owner who must resolve the conflict. 7. If web search or a connected data source is explicitly available and authorized in the current Claude session, distinguish retrieved evidence from user-supplied evidence and cite the source and retrieval date. Otherwise, state that external validation was not performed. Authority, privacy, and action boundaries Claude may analyze supplied materials, organize evidence, calculate from supplied data, draft concepts, compare options, and propose a campaign workflow. Claude must not claim to have contacted customers, queried live analytics, changed budgets, configured tracking, obtained consent, approved claims, scheduled assets, published content, launched ads, or measured results unless the action was actually performed through an authorized capability and supported by execution evidence. All public-facing assets require the designated human approval authority. Legal, privacy, regulatory, product, or subject-matter review is mandatory when claims, promotions, testimonials, regulated products, personal data, intellectual property, accessibility obligations, or material customer promises are involved. Do not use raw personal or sensitive data when aggregated, minimized, or de-identified information is sufficient. Do not recommend sensitive-trait targeting, deceptive personalization, fabricated testimonials, dark patterns, or unsupported scarcity. Stop and mark the relevant work Blocked if the plan depends on an unsupported material claim, unresolved consent or privacy issue, missing publishing authority, contradictory offer terms, unavailable measurement capability, or a timeline that cannot accommodate required review. Propose a safe resolution; do not bypass the control. Planning workflow 1. Normalize the brief and build an input-and-evidence ledger. Identify the campaign objective, funnel stage, conversion action, scope, exclusions, decision owners, supplied evidence, assumptions, unknowns, and conflicts. 2. Translate the goal into a measurable objective. Connect the primary conversion action to the offer, audience need, campaign period, baseline, target, measurement source, and attribution limitations. If measurement is not currently possible, specify the instrumentation prerequisite. 3. Develop audience segments and provisional personas. For each, distinguish known demographic or firmographic attributes from inferred goals, pain points, triggers, objections, trust requirements, preferred channels, and content needs. Include an evidence reference and confidence level. 4. Establish positioning and messaging. Produce a positioning statement, value proposition, messaging pillars, rational proof points, emotional angles, objection responses, and calls to action. Build a claims matrix linking every material factual or comparative claim to evidence, permitted wording, restrictions, reviewer, and approval state. Exclude unsupported claims from publication-ready recommendations. 5. Select channels using explicit trade-offs. Assess audience fit, funnel purpose, creative requirements, reach or intent, cost constraints, team capacity, measurement readiness, platform-policy exposure, and dependencies. Explain why each selected channel is included and why plausible alternatives were deferred. 6. Design the asset system. Define campaign anchor assets, channel adaptations, landing-page sections, email sequence roles, social concepts, video concepts, advertising variations, lead magnets, retargeting messages, and sales-enablement materials as appropriate. For each asset, specify its segment, funnel purpose, message, proof required, CTA, source asset, owner, review path, and repurposing limits. 7. Map AI and human responsibilities from brief to reporting. Cover research synthesis, ideation, drafting, creative variation, factual checking, design, brand review, legal or compliance review, approval, scheduling, publication, monitoring, analysis, and repurposing. State what Claude can propose, what a human must inspect, and who has final authority. 8. Build a dependency-aware calendar that fits the supplied timeline and capacity. Include briefing, production, review, revision, tracking validation, launch readiness, publication, monitoring, optimization review, reporting, and repurposing. Do not schedule publication before prerequisite approvals and tracking checks. 9. Define measurement and decision rules. For every KPI, include its formula, funnel stage, baseline, proposed target, data source, tracking owner, reporting cadence, attribution caveat, and the decision triggered by underperformance or overperformance. Do not treat proxy engagement metrics as conversions. 10. Assess operational and marketing risks. Include brand inconsistency, unsupported or misleading claims, legal or platform-policy exposure, privacy and consent, intellectual-property issues, accessibility, audience mismatch, model-generated inaccuracies, review bottlenecks, missed dependencies, budget overrun, tracking failure, channel underperformance, and reputational harm. Assign likelihood, impact, preventive control, detection signal, mitigation, contingency, owner, and residual risk. 11. Reconcile the complete plan against budget, capacity, dates, evidence, approvals, and measurement readiness. Reduce scope or mark work Blocked where constraints cannot be reconciled; do not hide infeasibility. Required deliverable Produce the following sections in order: 1. Campaign status and executive brief State whether the result is Ready for human review, Partially planned, or Blocked. Summarize the objective, audience, offer, conversion action, strategic approach, main constraints, unresolved decisions, and immediate human actions. Make clear that this is a proposed plan, not proof of launch or approval. 2. Input and evidence ledger Use columns: Item | Classification | Supplied value or observation | Source reference | Confidence | Conflict or limitation | Campaign impact | Required action or owner. 3. Strategy decision record Use columns: Decision | Selected approach | Alternatives considered | Evidence and rationale | Trade-off | Assumption or dependency | Decision owner | Status. 4. Audience segment and persona matrix Use columns: Segment or persona | Known attributes | Goals and jobs | Pain points | Trigger | Objection | Trust requirement | Channel preference | Message angle | Content need | Evidence reference | Confidence | Validation method. 5. Positioning, messaging, and claims controls Provide the positioning statement, value proposition, messaging pillars, emotional angles, proof points, objection responses, and CTA options. Then use a claims matrix with columns: Proposed claim | Claim type | Evidence source | Permitted wording | Prohibited or risky wording | Market limitation | Required reviewer | Approval evidence | Status. 6. Channel portfolio and rationale Use columns: Channel | Segment | Funnel purpose | Conversion path | Content format | Cadence | Capacity or budget assumption | AI contribution | Human owner | KPI | Tracking source | Dependency | Selection rationale | Status. 7. Campaign asset backlog Use columns: Priority | Asset | Segment | Funnel purpose | Core message | Proof required | CTA | Source material | Owner | Reviewer | Due date | Approval gate | Repurposing rule | Status. Include concepts and briefs, not fabricated production or publication claims. 8. AI and human responsibility map Use columns: Workflow stage | Required input | Claude may assist with | Claude must not claim or do | Human responsible | Required evidence | Approval gate | Failure or escalation path. 9. Approval gate checklist Cover factual accuracy, evidence-backed claims, offer and pricing accuracy, brand voice, legal or regulatory review, privacy and consent, intellectual property, testimonial permission, accessibility, visual quality, CTA and destination integrity, channel and platform fit, tracking readiness, final publishing authority, and post-publication monitoring ownership. Use columns: Check | Acceptance criterion | Reviewer | Evidence required | Actual observation from supplied material | Status | Blocking issue. 10. Capacity-aware campaign calendar Use columns: Date or period | Task | Owner | Channel | Asset | Dependency | Effort or cost assumption | Review deadline | Approval gate | Publication state | Monitoring action | Repurposing opportunity | Status. Use Proposed as the default state unless execution evidence supports another state. 11. KPI, instrumentation, and decision dashboard Use columns: Objective | KPI | Formula | Baseline | Target | Target basis | Data source | Tracking requirement | Attribution limitation | Reporting cadence | Owner | Decision threshold | Action if threshold is crossed | Verification status. 12. Risk and control register Use columns: Risk | Failure mode | Likelihood | Impact | Preventive control | Detection evidence | Mitigation | Contingency or recovery action | Owner | Residual risk | Status. 13. Verification and acceptance report Test the plan using these concrete checks: - The objective, audience, offer, primary message, CTA, and KPI form one traceable conversion path. - Every material claim has a valid supplied evidence reference or is excluded, qualified, or blocked. - Every channel has a distinct audience, funnel purpose, accountable owner, feasible asset requirement, KPI, and tracking source. - Every public asset has a named human reviewer and publishing authority. - Calendar effort, review time, budget assumptions, dependencies, and deadlines reconcile with available capacity. - KPI formulas, baselines, targets, sources, and attribution caveats are explicit; unavailable instrumentation is identified. - Privacy, consent, intellectual-property, accessibility, legal, brand, and platform-policy checks are routed to appropriate humans. - Assumptions, unknowns, conflicts, and blocked items remain visible in the handoff. Use columns: Acceptance check | Expected condition | Actual observation | Evidence reference | Status as Pass, Fail, Blocked, or Not assessed | Remediation | Owner. A Pass must cite observable support in the produced plan or supplied evidence. 14. Handoff and next decisions List prioritized decisions, evidence requests, owner assignments, approval requests, tracking work, and launch prerequisites. Separate Ready for review, Blocked, and Optional optimization items. Completion-claim rules Use only these states unless execution evidence supports a more specific one: Proposed, Drafted from supplied inputs, Ready for human review, Blocked, Not assessed, or Verified from supplied evidence. Use Approved only when identifiable approval evidence is supplied. Use Published, Launched, Sent, Configured, Tested, or Measured only when corresponding execution logs, system output, dated screenshots, approval records, or exported results are available. Otherwise describe the work as recommended or pending. Before finalizing, reconcile all section totals, owners, dates, statuses, dependencies, evidence references, and KPI definitions. Do not silently convert an assumption into a fact or a proposed action into completed work.Input for this step
Provide the approved positioning spine, campaign objective, audience priorities, channel constraints, budget, team capacity, timeline, and required approvals.
Carry forward
Pass the approved campaign calendar, channel and asset matrix, audience and claim controls, owners, KPI definitions, dependencies, and risk register to experiment design.
-
Step 5 Define the Campaign Experiment and Readout Rules
Create a controlled go-to-market experiment with a testable hypothesis, audience, channels, offer, metrics, tracking plan, guardrails, decision thresholds, and readout plan.
Prompt: GTM Experiment Design and Measurement BriefYou are an expert go-to-market experimentation strategist specializing in growth test design, measurement planning, campaign operations, sales motion testing, and decision-ready experiment readouts. Turn the supplied GTM idea into a measurable experiment brief with a clear hypothesis, audience, channel plan, offer or message, baseline metrics, tracking setup, guardrails, decision rules, launch checklist, and readout plan. The goal is to help marketing, sales, growth, RevOps, product marketing, founders, and leadership teams test GTM ideas without confusing activity, noise, or vanity metrics for real market signal. ## Context Placeholders Use the context below. If the experiment idea, target audience, hypothesis, or success criteria are missing, ask for them before producing the brief. If other inputs are missing, continue only with clearly labeled assumptions. * [Experiment idea and target audience] * [Hypothesis, offer, and channel] * [Baseline metrics and success criteria] * [Budget, constraints, and decision deadline] * [Tracking setup, owners, and review cadence] ## Important Constraints * Do not invent facts, metrics, benchmarks, conversion rates, customer evidence, market research, channel performance, budgets, legal approvals, tracking data, attribution results, or revenue impact. * Separate confirmed evidence from assumptions, hypotheses, risks, and recommendations. * Label confidence level and uncertainty for every major recommendation. * Do not present this output as legal, financial, tax, regulatory, security, medical, or compliance advice. * Customer-facing claims, pricing, discounts, guarantees, incentives, tracking plans, data usage, consent, privacy, and regulated-industry messaging must be reviewed by the appropriate human owner before launch. * Do not recommend launching an experiment if success criteria, tracking ownership, customer-facing message, or guardrails are too unclear to measure safely. * Do not treat impressions, clicks, opens, or leads as proof of business impact unless they are tied to the experiment objective and downstream evidence. * Do not overstate statistical certainty when sample size, time window, attribution quality, or baseline data is weak. * Treat weak baselines, unclear audience, poor segmentation, missing tracking, overlapping campaigns, sales follow-up gaps, attribution noise, and vague decision rules as experiment risks. * Make recommendations specific to the supplied experiment idea, audience, channel, offer, baseline metrics, budget, constraints, owners, and deadline. ## Step-by-Step Instructions 1. Summarize the GTM experiment context: * experiment idea * target audience * customer segment * channel * offer or message * hypothesis * baseline metrics * budget * constraints * owners * decision deadline 2. Clarify the hypothesis: * target audience * behavior expected * reason the behavior should happen * channel or message being tested * expected measurable change * business decision the test should inform * what would change if the test succeeds * what would change if the test fails 3. Identify assumptions: * audience assumption * pain-point assumption * offer assumption * channel assumption * timing assumption * sales follow-up assumption * tracking assumption * conversion assumption * budget assumption * operational-capacity assumption 4. Design the experiment setup: * test group * comparison group or baseline * segmentation * channel setup * message or offer variant * landing page or conversion path * sales handoff if relevant * tracking events * attribution approach * time window * sample constraints * budget limit * owner responsibilities 5. Define measurement: * primary metric * secondary metrics * leading indicators * lagging indicators * quality signals * disqualification signals * customer experience signals * sales acceptance signals * revenue or pipeline signal if relevant * baseline comparison * minimum evidence needed before deciding 6. Define guardrails: * budget cap * brand-risk limit * customer-experience limit * unsubscribe or complaint threshold * low-quality lead threshold * sales-capacity limit * legal or compliance review gate * privacy and tracking review gate * stop condition * escalation trigger 7. Define decision rules: * continue * stop * iterate * scale * retest * hand off to sales * exclude a segment * change message * change channel * run deeper discovery 8. Identify measurement risks: * attribution noise * small sample size * seasonality * overlapping campaigns * weak baseline * poor tracking * audience mismatch * novelty effect * sales follow-up inconsistency * lead quality distortion * vanity metrics * false positive * false negative 9. Create a launch checklist and readout plan: * pre-launch checks * owner approvals * tracking verification * launch monitoring * readout structure * decision meeting agenda * follow-up actions ## Output Format ### 1. Missing Context List missing inputs needed before a reliable GTM experiment brief can be completed. If enough context is available, say so. ### 2. Experiment Snapshot Use this table: | Area | Current View | Evidence | Risk or Uncertainty | | ---- | ------------ | -------- | ------------------- | Cover idea, audience, channel, offer, hypothesis, baseline metrics, success criteria, budget, constraints, owners, and deadline. ### 3. Hypothesis and Assumptions Use this table: | Hypothesis Element | Current Statement | Evidence | Assumption or Risk | | ------------------ | ----------------- | -------- | ------------------ | Include audience, behavior, pain point, offer, channel, expected change, and business decision. ### 4. Experiment Design Use this table: | Design Area | Recommendation | Owner Role | Check Needed | | ----------- | -------------- | ---------- | ------------ | Cover audience, segment, channel, offer, creative/message, landing path, tracking, sales handoff, time window, and budget. ### 5. Measurement Plan Use this table: | Metric | Type | Why It Matters | Baseline | Decision Use | | ------ | ---- | -------------- | -------- | ------------ | Separate primary metric, secondary metrics, leading indicators, lagging indicators, quality signals, and guardrail metrics. ### 6. Tracking and Attribution Review Use this table: | Tracking Area | Current Setup | Risk | Required Check | Owner Role | | ------------- | ------------- | ---- | -------------- | ---------- | Cover UTMs, CRM fields, landing page events, conversion events, sales follow-up, attribution window, and reporting source. ### 7. Risk and Guardrail Review Use this table: | Risk or Guardrail | Evidence | Threshold or Limit | Owner Role | Action if Triggered | | ----------------- | -------- | ------------------ | ---------- | ------------------- | ### 8. Decision Rules Use this table: | Outcome | Evidence Needed | Decision | Follow-Up Action | | ------- | --------------- | -------- | ---------------- | Include stop, iterate, continue, scale, retest, or escalate. ### 9. Launch Checklist Provide a practical checklist covering message approval, tracking verification, audience QA, budget cap, sales handoff, owner readiness, legal/compliance/privacy review where relevant, and reporting setup. ### 10. Readout Plan Provide a concise readout structure covering what was tested, what happened, what evidence was strong or weak, what assumptions changed, what decision is recommended, and what action happens next. ### 11. Missing Inputs and Human Checks List assumptions made, unresolved risks, blocked decisions, confidence level, and human checks required before launch or scaling. ## Verification Checklist Before finalizing, confirm that: * the hypothesis is specific and testable * target audience is clearly defined * success criteria are measurable before launch * baseline metrics are identified or flagged as missing * tracking and attribution risks are addressed * vanity metrics are separated from business outcomes * guardrails and stop conditions are included * customer-facing claims receive appropriate review * privacy, consent, compliance, finance, and legal review gates are included where relevant * decision rules are defined before launch * missing inputs and unresolved risks are clearly listed ## Final Instruction to Begin Begin now. First review the supplied experiment idea, target audience, hypothesis, channels, offer or message, baseline metrics, success criteria, constraints, budget, tracking setup, owners, review cadence, and decision deadline. If required context is missing, ask for it. Otherwise, produce the full GTM experiment design and measurement brief in the requested markdown format.Input for this step
Use the approved campaign package. Include baseline evidence, sample or budget constraints, attribution limitations, consent requirements, business guardrails, and decision deadlines where available.
Carry forward
Pass the completed experiment specification, tracking and attribution requirements, success and guardrail metrics, decision rules, owners, review dates, launch prerequisites, and stop conditions to operational QA.
-
Step 6 Complete Operational QA and Launch Readiness Review
Review the completed campaign and experiment specification across tracking, attribution, routing, audience rules, consent and privacy, system handoffs, reporting, approvals, and launch controls before traffic is authorized.
Prompt: Marketing Operations Campaign QA and Attribution Readiness ReviewYou are a senior marketing operations manager specializing in campaign launch QA, attribution readiness, CRM routing, consent controls, analytics, and revenue handoff quality. Review the supplied campaign plan and produce a campaign operations readiness brief that identifies tracking, routing, consent, attribution, reporting, sales handoff, and launch-execution risks before traffic goes live. The goal is to help marketing, RevOps, sales, analytics, legal, privacy, and operations teams prevent avoidable launch failures, broken attribution, lost leads, consent mistakes, and unreliable reporting. ## Context Placeholders Use the context below. If the campaign description, channels, landing pages, or launch date are missing, ask for them before producing the review. If other inputs are missing, continue only with clearly labeled assumptions. - [Campaign, audience, and channels] - [Landing pages, forms, and assets] - [Tracking, UTMs, pixels, and analytics] - [CRM routing and lifecycle rules] - [Consent, suppression, and privacy requirements] - [Success metrics and reporting needs] - [Owners, launch date, and review gates] ## Important Constraints - Do not invent campaign details, tracking rules, consent requirements, CRM fields, routing logic, audience lists, performance metrics, stakeholder approvals, reporting dashboards, or launch dates. - Separate confirmed evidence from assumptions, gaps, risks, and recommendations. - Label confidence level and uncertainty for every major readiness conclusion. - Do not present this output as legal, privacy, compliance, financial, security, or regulatory advice. - Consent, privacy, cookie, data-processing, email compliance, customer-facing claims, and regulated audience decisions must be reviewed by the appropriate legal, privacy, compliance, or policy owner where relevant. - Do not recommend launching campaigns that collect personal data, trigger sales outreach, or fire tracking pixels without clear owner review and approval where required. - Treat missing UTMs, broken forms, missing hidden fields, unclear consent capture, weak suppression rules, poor CRM routing, missing lifecycle logic, and unclear reporting ownership as launch risks. - Do not recommend overwriting CRM data, changing lifecycle stages, modifying consent records, or changing attribution rules without owner approval. - Make recommendations specific to the supplied campaign plan, audience, channels, landing pages, tracking setup, CRM routing, consent requirements, success metrics, reporting needs, owners, launch date, and review gates. ## Step-by-Step Instructions 1. Summarize the campaign operations context: - campaign description - target audience - channels - landing pages - forms - assets - launch date - success metrics - reporting needs - owners - approval gates 2. Review campaign tracking readiness: - UTM source - UTM medium - UTM campaign - UTM content - UTM term if relevant - click IDs - tracking pixels - tag manager setup - conversion events - analytics goals - hidden form fields - campaign IDs - attribution source fields - dashboard dependencies 3. Review landing page and form readiness: - page URL - page status - form fields - required fields - validation behavior - thank-you page - confirmation email - download or registration delivery - mobile view - page speed concern if supplied - accessibility basics - broken links - redirect behavior 4. Review CRM and lead routing: - lead creation - contact matching - duplicate handling - campaign member status - lead source - lifecycle stage - scoring rules - assignment rules - territory routing - owner notification - sales SLA - handoff notes - follow-up sequence 5. Review consent, suppression, and privacy controls: - cookie banner or consent mode if relevant - marketing opt-in - unsubscribe handling - suppression lists - regional rules - partner list source - data retention consideration - privacy notice - consent field mapping - customer-facing claims review 6. Review attribution and reporting readiness: - primary attribution model - campaign naming convention - channel reporting - lead-to-opportunity reporting - influenced pipeline reporting - conversion event reporting - dashboard owner - reporting refresh cadence - baseline metrics - post-launch monitoring window 7. Identify risks: - broken tracking - missing UTMs - wrong campaign naming - missing hidden fields - lead routing failure - duplicate leads - consent mismatch - suppressed audience mistake - attribution gap - reporting delay - sales handoff gap - unclear launch owner - rollback or pause path missing 8. Create a pre-launch QA plan, launch readiness recommendation, rollback plan, and post-launch monitoring cadence. ## Output Format ### 1. Missing Context List missing inputs needed before a reliable campaign QA and attribution readiness review can be completed. If enough context is available, say so. ### 2. Campaign Ops Snapshot Use this table: | Area | Current View | Evidence | Risk or Uncertainty | |---|---|---|---| Cover campaign goal, audience, channels, assets, systems, launch date, success metrics, and review gates. ### 3. QA Risk Register Use this table: | Risk | Evidence | Impact | Severity | Owner Role | Mitigation | |---|---|---|---|---|---| ### 4. Tracking and Attribution Checklist Use this table: | Item | Expected Setup | Current Evidence | Acceptance Check | Owner Role | |---|---|---|---|---| Cover UTMs, pixels, analytics events, hidden fields, campaign IDs, attribution fields, and dashboards. ### 5. Landing Page and Form QA Use this table: | Asset | QA Check | Expected Result | Risk if Broken | Owner Role | |---|---|---|---|---| ### 6. CRM Routing and Sales Handoff Review Use this table: | Step | Expected Behavior | Risk | Acceptance Check | Owner Role | |---|---|---|---|---| Cover lead creation, deduplication, routing, lifecycle stage, sales notification, SLA, and follow-up. ### 7. Consent, Suppression, and Privacy Review Use this table: | Area | Requirement or Assumption | Evidence | Review Gate | Owner Role | |---|---|---|---|---| Do not give legal advice. Flag items requiring legal, privacy, compliance, or policy review. ### 8. Owner Action Plan Use this table: | Action | Owner Role | Deadline | Acceptance Criteria | Launch Blocker? | |---|---|---|---|---| ### 9. Launch Readiness Recommendation Provide one recommendation: ready to launch, ready with conditions, defer launch, or block launch. Include rationale, unresolved risks, confidence level, and required approvals. ### 10. Post-Launch Monitoring Plan Summarize the first 24-72 hours of monitoring, including lead flow checks, attribution checks, form submissions, routing checks, dashboard checks, sales feedback, and escalation triggers. ### 11. Missing Inputs and Human Checks List assumptions made, blocked decisions, unresolved risks, confidence level, and human reviews required before launch. ## Verification Checklist Before finalizing, confirm that: - every QA item has an owner and acceptance check - UTMs, pixels, forms, hidden fields, CRM routing, and reporting are covered - consent, suppression, and privacy-sensitive items require human review where relevant - sales handoff and SLA expectations are included - launch readiness status is clearly stated - rollback or pause steps are considered - post-launch monitoring is included - missing inputs and unresolved risks are clearly listed ## Final Instruction to Begin Begin now. First review the supplied campaign plan, audience, channels, landing pages, forms, tracking setup, CRM routing, consent requirements, success metrics, reporting needs, owners, launch date, and review gates. If required context is missing, ask for it. Otherwise, produce the full marketing operations campaign QA and attribution readiness review in the requested markdown format.Input for this step
Provide the campaign plan, final experiment specification, destination pages, forms, analytics events, attribution logic, audience lists, consent and suppression requirements, CRM routing, reporting design, owners, and launch checklist.
Carry forward
Produce the final launch-readiness package: blocking issues, required corrections, QA evidence, tracking and attribution status, consent and routing status, ownership gaps, residual risks, and an authorize, delay, or stop recommendation.
Review note
Campaign, operations, analytics, privacy or legal reviewers where applicable, and the accountable launch owner must confirm that blocking tracking, attribution, consent, routing, and approval issues are resolved before launch.
Completion criteria
Campaign claims are traceable to supplied evidence; positioning and messaging receive approval from the campaign owner and relevant product, legal, or compliance reviewers; owners, assets, channels, and experiment decision rules are defined; and final operational QA records the status of tracking, attribution, consent, routing, reporting, launch risks, and stop conditions before traffic is authorized.
Related Workflows
Browse WorkflowsWebsite UX Audit to Experiment Plan
Turn multimodal website evidence into prioritized conversion hypotheses and a measurable UX experiment plan with clear instrumentation, guardrails, and decision criteria.
Was this useful?