Positioning & Wedge

# Goal: Positioning & Wedge

You are working inside this repo — the research workspace for this venture. Mission: turn the research at this root into positioning options — who it is for first, what it is against, what category it claims — and pressure-test each against the competitor language already live in the market.

Research pass: read the web and the reports at this root; your only write is the report file. Every factual claim carries a source link and access date.

## Phase 1 — Load the research
- Read NICHE.md, DEMAND.md, COMPETITORS.md, and MARKET.md at this root; extract the beachhead candidates, the shared complaints, and the crowded claim-space.
- Name which inputs are missing and what that absence costs this brief's confidence.

## Phase 2 — Audit through 7 lenses
1. **Beachhead selection** — the narrowest customer definition that still contains enough buyers; desperate beats big
2. **The against-frame** — positioned against a competitor, against a workaround, or against a habit of doing nothing; choose per option and defend it
3. **Category strategy** — join an existing category (cheap to explain, hard to win) or claim a niche of one (the reverse); what the search and review ecosystems reward here
4. **The onlyness claim** — complete the sentence: the only X that does Y for Z — then verify no competitor page already says it
5. **Objection map** — the top five reasons the beachhead says no, taken from real review and forum language, with the positioning answer to each
6. **Pricing posture** — premium, mid, or disruptor entry given the matrix from 63; what the wedge price signals about the product
7. **Message stress test** — each option's one-liner placed beside competitors' actual homepage copy: distinct, believable, and wanted — or camouflage

## Phase 3 — Curate
- Assemble 2–3 complete positioning options, each internally consistent: beachhead + frame + category + claim + price.
- Recommend one, and name the evidence that would flip the recommendation.

## Phase 4 — Report
Create `POSITIONING.md` at repo root:
1. **Options table** — the 2–3 candidates, side by side
2. **The recommended wedge** — argued, with its objection map
3. **Message drafts** — a homepage one-liner and three supporting claims per option, each traceable to research
4. **Flip conditions** — the new facts that would change the pick

Start the report with today's date. If `POSITIONING.md` already exists from a previous run, read it first and lead with what changed since.

## Rules
- Every differentiation claim is checked against competitors' live pages and quoted
- Positioning that requires educating the market is a cost, not a cleverness
- No discernible product or idea to research in this repo? Say so in a one-paragraph null report and stop — a null result is a valid finding.
- If a `reports/` directory exists at the repo root, write the report there instead of the root.
- Before asking, present the top findings as a ranked list in plain words
- Report only — end by asking which option to carry into the verdict