Andrew Yim
f27fb7a2c4
Import two skills authored in Claude Cowork: jamie-copy-trimmer as a root-only Jamie skill, and campaign-gate-process as dintel-campaign-designer with full D.intelligence Agent Corps packaging (code/desktop/shared, agent-id 78, Draft & Wait autonomy) since it now sits inside the 70-79 block. Bumps the corps roster count to 9 agents + 1 meta-agent across all sibling skills and registers #78 in the shared USER-GUIDE/README. Also adds .claude/commands wrappers and ~/.claude/skills symlinks so both are usable. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
3.2 KiB
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.