# Facilitation Guide — Debate & Outcomes

Deeper guidance for running Gate 1's debate and setting Gate 2's outcome metrics.

## Running the Gate 1 debate (don't rubber-stamp)

**Objective priority — force one.** If the user lists several goals (retention, cash, awareness), make them rank. Multiple co-equal objectives are the root of bloated, contradictory plans. Ask: "If we could only achieve one, which one?"

**Steelman, then devil's advocate.**
- Steelman: state the strongest possible case FOR the idea, better than the user did.
- Devil's advocate: argue AGAINST it — where it wastes money, annoys customers, cannibalizes, or breaks compliance.
- Then answer the single strongest objection. If it can't be answered, that's a finding.

**Pre-mortem.** "It's 90 days later and this flopped. Write the reason." Common failure seeds: wrong audience, offer too strong/weak, no follow-through, channel fatigue, compliance block.

**Reference cases.** Pull 1–3 concrete precedents (competitors, other categories, past campaigns). Cite sources. Ask what specifically transfers and what doesn't. Avoid "best practices" hand-waving.

**Hypotheses, not targets (yet).** At Gate 1, expected effects are hypotheses with an observation method: "We believe X will move Y; we'll know by watching Z." Numbers get committed only at Gate 2, and only with a baseline.

## The 4-tier outcome framework (Gate 2)

Brand marketing lives partly in perception, which is hard to measure — but "hard to measure" must not become "vague direction." Anchor each qualitative goal to a **brand-equity** element: an **attribute** (what the brand is), an **association** (what it evokes), or an **asset** (an owned phrase/symbol). That keeps it concrete.

| Tier | Examples of metrics | Note |
|------|--------------------|------|
| Awareness / cognitive | reach, impressions, branded-search lift, recall | leading indicators |
| Qualitative | message reaction, tone-fit, consult quality, sentiment | **name the brand attribute/association/asset it strengthens** |
| Relationship / advocacy | revisit intent, referral/recommendation, voluntary reviews | trust signals |
| Quantitative conversion | inquiries, bookings, purchases, revenue | **no baseline → label as hypothesis, not target** |

**Baseline rule.** A number without a baseline is a guess wearing a target's clothes. Either supply a baseline (past data, connected analytics) or explicitly label it a hypothesis / observation metric. This is what makes targets credible.

**Measurement method per qualitative goal.** For each soft metric, write how you'd observe it (survey item, review sentiment, consult-note tag). If you can't name a method, it's a direction, not a metric — say so.

## Quick gate checklist
- Gate 1 pass: one primary objective agreed; strongest objection answered; ≥1 reference case; effects framed as hypotheses; user approved.
- Gate 2 pass: brief fits one page; outcomes span the 4 tiers; baseline-less numbers labeled hypotheses; qualitative goals tied to brand assets; user approved.
- Gate 3: body decision-relevant; risks/compliance consolidated in "준비 점검 사항"; gaps marked [확인]; copy through jamie-copy-trimmer; compliance via jamie-brand-guardian.