CEO High Ground
EDit 2.0 · Position Architecture for Sole Decision-Makers
Nine research instruments, run on your own market, in sequence. They produce a competitive census, the language your buyers actually use, the surfaces nobody in your industry occupies, and a terrain map showing exactly where you and every competitor stand.
Nothing here is gated, sold, or held back. You can run all of them today without speaking to anyone.
Every market has a floor. The flats — where competitors stand claiming identical things that none of them can prove, and buyers decide on price or proximity because those are the only differences they can verify.
High ground is a position inside that same market that competitors cannot occupy. Not a better claim. A dimension where the rest of the field scores at or near zero and cannot raise the score without becoming a different company.
Instrument 05 plots every competitor on two axes and assigns terrain. Including you.
Says something few others say, and can prove it to a buyer before purchase. In most markets this zone is empty.
Says what everyone says, but can back some of it. Credible and still comparable.
Unusual claims nobody can verify. Looks like a position from a distance. Collapses on contact.
Says what everyone says, proves none of it. Most markets have fifteen or more companies here and nobody anywhere else.
Six fields. This drops your business into all seven instruments below so you can copy and run them without editing anything. Nothing is stored or transmitted — this runs entirely in your browser.
If this button does not respond, copy the instruments as they are and replace the bracketed placeholders yourself.
These will tell you things you did not want to hear, including about your own positioning. That is the instrument working. One that only ever confirms what you already believed is not an instrument.
What your buyers actually say — verbatim, from reviews, forums and complaint threads. Not what your industry believes they care about. What they say when they are angry, and what they say when they are grateful.
I need verbatim buyer language for a specific market. I am not looking for analysis — I am looking for what actual buyers say in their own words. MY MARKET Company: [YOUR COMPANY NAME] What we do: [WHAT YOU ACTUALLY DO] Market / service area: [YOUR SERVICE AREA] Business type: [BUSINESS TYPE] WHAT I NEED 1. At least 25 VERBATIM quotes from buyers in this category — from review platforms, forums, community threads, complaint sites, social posts and Q&A sites. Quote exactly. Include the source and approximate date. 2. Sort them into complaint clusters. For each cluster: how many quotes, what the underlying failure is, and the emotional register — irritation, anxiety, anger, resignation, betrayal. 3. Identify the single most intense language in the dataset. Which complaint produces the strongest words, and what exactly do buyers say? 4. The vocabulary gap. What are buyers describing that they have no word for? Where do they resort to analogy, approximation, or "I don't know how to explain it"? 5. What buyers say when they are HAPPY. Same treatment — verbatim, sourced. What specifically earns praise, and is it about outcome or about the experience of buying? 6. What buyers say they use to CHOOSE between providers in this category. Price, proximity, reviews, referral, credentials, gut feel — quote them describing their own decision process. RESEARCH STANDARDS — follow these strictly. - Cite a named, verifiable source for every factual claim. Company website, filing, review platform, forum thread, publication — with enough detail that it can be checked. - Do not invent companies, figures, dates, quotes or outcomes. Where something cannot be verified, write UNVERIFIED and state what could not be confirmed. - Distinguish clearly between what a company CLAIMS and what can be DOCUMENTED by a third party. This distinction is the point of the exercise. - Quote buyers verbatim. Do not paraphrase, clean up, or summarise their language. - Report gaps as gaps. Where evidence does not exist, say so plainly rather than reasoning toward a conclusion. - Close with a section titled FLAGGED UNCERTAINTIES listing everything you could not verify.
The months before a buyer knows your category exists. Symptoms without vocabulary, money spent on the wrong variable, and who is standing there instead of you.
I am researching the period BEFORE a buyer knows this category exists. Not the point of purchase. The months or years earlier, when someone has the symptoms of a problem, no vocabulary for it, and is spending money on things that will not solve it. MY MARKET Company: [YOUR COMPANY NAME] What we do: [WHAT YOU ACTUALLY DO] Market / service area: [YOUR SERVICE AREA] Topics our customers ask about: [FIVE TOPICS YOUR CUSTOMERS ASK ABOUT] WHAT I NEED 1. THE ARC. Map the progression from first symptom to entering the market. What are the phases, roughly how long does each last, and what changes between them? Base this on documented buyer accounts, not on models. 2. THE LANGUAGE. What EXACT phrases do people use before they have category vocabulary? Give me at least 20 real search-style phrases and forum posts — the words of someone who does not yet know this category exists. Verbatim. Sourced. 3. THE MISATTRIBUTION. What do people blame instead of the real cause? What do they buy to fix the wrong variable? Where possible, what does that spending cost them? 4. THE TRIGGER. What finally moves someone from tolerating the problem to actively looking for a provider? Quote people describing that moment. 5. WHO IS STANDING THERE. Search the phrases from item 2. Who actually shows up? Publishers, retailers, forums, adjacent industries, manufacturers? List them by name and state what they are selling. 6. Is ANY provider in this category present in that window? Name them and describe what they published. If the answer is none, say so plainly. RESEARCH STANDARDS — follow these strictly. - Cite a named, verifiable source for every factual claim. Company website, filing, review platform, forum thread, publication — with enough detail that it can be checked. - Do not invent companies, figures, dates, quotes or outcomes. Where something cannot be verified, write UNVERIFIED and state what could not be confirmed. - Distinguish clearly between what a company CLAIMS and what can be DOCUMENTED by a third party. This distinction is the point of the exercise. - Quote buyers verbatim. Do not paraphrase, clean up, or summarise their language. - Report gaps as gaps. Where evidence does not exist, say so plainly rather than reasoning toward a conclusion. - Close with a section titled FLAGGED UNCERTAINTIES listing everything you could not verify.
Your top twenty competitors. Every claim inventoried — and then the part almost nobody measures: what any of them can actually document.
I need a competitive census of my market — and specifically an audit of what each competitor can actually prove versus what they claim. MY MARKET Company: [YOUR COMPANY NAME] What we do: [WHAT YOU ACTUALLY DO] Market / service area: [YOUR SERVICE AREA] Size: [NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES] Business type: [BUSINESS TYPE] WHAT I NEED 1. THE CENSUS. Identify the top 20 competitors serving this market, ranked by market presence. For each: name, locations, estimated size, years in operation, apparent specialisation. Mark anything unverifiable. 2. THE CLAIM INVENTORY. For each of the 20, inventory their self-stated claims in their own public wording — quality, experience, speed, service, guarantees, price, specialisation. Quote their marketing. 3. THE DOCUMENTATION AUDIT — this is the core of the exercise. For every claim, determine whether a third party could verify it before purchasing. Split into two columns: VERIFIABLE — licences, certifications, registry entries, published pricing, equipment on site, published data, named credentials, anything checkable. ASSERTED ONLY — marketing superlatives, self-reported experience totals, testimonials, subjective ratings, unbacked outcome claims. Note: a testimonial is not documentation of a process. A star rating is not documentation of quality. 4. THE OVERLAP TABLE. Build a grid: common claims down the side, the 20 companies across the top. Mark who makes each claim. Then state the overlap plainly — how many make each claim, and how many can document it. 5. DOCUMENTED DIFFERENTIATION. Excluding reviews, marketing language and self-reported totals: does ANY competitor possess a unique, documented asset the others cannot replicate? Name it, or state that none exists. 6. THE EFFICACY QUESTION. If documentation is defined strictly — published outcome data, audited records, third-party measurement — can any provider in this market prove superior results over any other? Answer directly. 7. TRIAL AND EVALUATION. How do buyers evaluate providers before committing? For each method, rate how well it actually reveals quality: High, Moderate, or Low. Explain the rating. RESEARCH STANDARDS — follow these strictly. - Cite a named, verifiable source for every factual claim. Company website, filing, review platform, forum thread, publication — with enough detail that it can be checked. - Do not invent companies, figures, dates, quotes or outcomes. Where something cannot be verified, write UNVERIFIED and state what could not be confirmed. - Distinguish clearly between what a company CLAIMS and what can be DOCUMENTED by a third party. This distinction is the point of the exercise. - Quote buyers verbatim. Do not paraphrase, clean up, or summarise their language. - Report gaps as gaps. Where evidence does not exist, say so plainly rather than reasoning toward a conclusion. - Close with a section titled FLAGGED UNCERTAINTIES listing everything you could not verify.
The twelve things that actually decide who a buyer chooses in your business type — every competitor coded against all twelve. Produces the complaint density, the empty cells, and the single attribute where the field is weakest.
Using the competitive census you just completed, code the entire market
against the twelve performance attributes that decide purchase in this
business type.
THE ATTRIBUTE GRID
Four business types. Use ONLY the column matching mine, stated below in
rank order — attribute 1 is what buyers weigh most heavily.
My business type: [BUSINESS TYPE]
SERVICE BUSINESS
1 The right evaluation of what is actually wrong
2 Job done right the first time
3 No ghost work — nothing charged that was not done
4 Not overcharged
5 Educated about what is happening and why
6 Finished on time
7 Professional conduct on site
8 Friendly to deal with
9 Communication throughout
10 Warranty or guarantee
11 Follow-up after the job
12 Price
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1 The right evaluation of the actual situation
2 Gives advice and teaches rather than just executing
3 Genuine expertise in the specific matter
4 Results the first time
5 Meets the deadline
6 Not overcharged
7 Friendly to deal with
8 Client communication
9 Performance guarantee
10 Proprietary process rather than generic method
11 Follow-up after the engagement
12 Bid price
RETAIL
1 Selection
2 Variety of quality levels
3 Helpful staff
4 Knowledgeable staff
5 Convenience
6 Return policy
7 Price
8 Bonuses and packages
9 Payment options
10 Support after the sale
11 Checkout process
12 Store layout
MANUFACTURING, WHOLESALE, DISTRIBUTION
1 Support after the sale
2 In stock when needed
3 Quality
4 Price and margins
5 Delivery
6 Return policy
7 Terms
8 Marketing, sales and advertising support
9 Technical support
10 Easy to order
11 On-time shipping
12 Customising and private labelling
WHAT I NEED
1. THE GRID. Build a matrix. Twelve attributes down the side, every
competitor from the census across the top, including mine.
For each cell use one of three marks:
CLAIM — they make a claim about this attribute in public marketing
PROVE — they make the claim AND a buyer could verify it before
purchasing, through a third party, without trusting them
BLANK — they say nothing about it
Quote the actual claim wording where a cell is marked CLAIM or PROVE.
2. THE ROLLUP. For each of the twelve attributes:
- How many competitors claim it
- How many can document it
- The gap between those two numbers
3. COMPLAINT DENSITY. Cross-reference the verbatim buyer language
collected earlier in this conversation. For each attribute, how many
complaints map to it? Quote the two strongest complaints per attribute
that has any.
This is the most important item in the report. Buyers complain loudest
about the attributes the field fails at most reliably.
4. THE NEGATIVE-FRAMED ATTRIBUTES. Some attributes are stated as the
absence of something bad rather than the presence of something good —
no ghost work, not overcharged, no missed deadline.
Treat these separately and weight them heavily. **They name an active
fear the buyer is carrying**, and almost nobody markets against a fear,
which means the cells are usually blank even where the complaints are
loudest. Report every negative-framed attribute with its claim count,
documentation count, and complaint count side by side.
5. THE EMPTY CELLS. Which attributes does NOBODY in this market claim?
For each, determine which it is:
IRRELEVANT — buyers in this category genuinely do not weigh it
VOID — buyers weigh it and no provider addresses it
Justify each classification against the buyer language, not against
assumption. **The voids are the finding.**
6. THE UNMEASURABLE ATTRIBUTE. Attribute 1 in both service columns is a
diagnostic judgment — whether the provider correctly identified what
was actually wrong. A buyer cannot evaluate this before purchase and
frequently cannot evaluate it afterward either.
How many competitors claim it? How many can document it in any way a
buyer could check before buying? If the answer to the second question
is zero, say so plainly — an attribute buyers rank first and nobody can
demonstrate is a void by definition.
7. WHERE I SIT. My company's row, attribute by attribute. Which do I
claim, which can I prove, and which am I silent on? Be blunt about the
blanks.
8. THE DESCENT TARGET. Name the single attribute with the widest gap
between how much buyers care about it and how much the field can
document about it. Show the reasoning: buyer rank, complaint count,
claim count, documentation count.
That attribute is where the position work starts.
RESEARCH STANDARDS
- Quote actual marketing wording. Do not paraphrase claims into your own
language — the exact words matter.
- A testimonial is not documentation. A star rating is not documentation.
A credential every competitor holds is not documentation of difference.
- Where a cell is uncertain, mark it UNVERIFIED rather than guessing.
- Report gaps as gaps.
- Close with FLAGGED UNCERTAINTIES.
The twelve-attribute framework used here is the Four Business Types
Performance Matrix, originated by Edwin Earle Jacobi III.
Who shows up on search, on maps, and in AI answers. Tested two ways: who gets hired, and who gets cited months before anyone hires.
I need to know who occupies which digital surface in my market — and
specifically the difference between who gets HIRED and who gets CITED.
MY MARKET
Company: [YOUR COMPANY NAME]
What we do: [WHAT YOU ACTUALLY DO]
Market / service area: [YOUR SERVICE AREA]
Topics our customers ask about: [FIVE TOPICS YOUR CUSTOMERS ASK ABOUT]
TEST TWO CLASSES OF QUERY
CLASS 1 — CATEGORY QUERIES. Someone ready to hire, using category and
geography language. Write 8 realistic ones for this market.
CLASS 2 — TOPIC QUERIES. Someone with the problem who does not know this
category exists. Plain symptom or problem language. No category words, no
geography, no provider names. Write 8 realistic ones drawn from the topics
above.
WHAT I NEED
1. WEB — CATEGORY. Who occupies the top results and the map pack for the
Class 1 queries? Build a frequency table of who appears and how often.
2. WEB — TOPIC. Who occupies the top results for the Class 2 queries?
State the local-provider presence as a percentage for each query.
3. AI — CATEGORY. Run the Class 1 queries against AI assistants. Which
local providers get named? How often does the system decline to name
anyone?
4. AI — TOPIC. Run the Class 2 queries. Which local providers get cited,
named or recommended? If none, state it as a percentage across all
queries and all platforms.
5. THE FOUR-CELL MATRIX. Summarise as a grid:
CATEGORY QUERIES TOPIC QUERIES
WEB SEARCH who holds it who holds it
AI RETRIEVAL who holds it who holds it
For each cell: contested, lightly held, or empty. Name the occupants.
6. EMPTY GROUND. Which cells have no local provider in them at all? That
is unclaimed territory and it is the most important finding in this
report.
7. PUBLISHED DEPTH. What do competitors actually publish? Word counts,
formats, depth. Who publishes substantive material and who publishes
promotional filler?
RESEARCH STANDARDS — follow these strictly.
- Cite a named, verifiable source for every factual claim. Company website,
filing, review platform, forum thread, publication — with enough detail
that it can be checked.
- Do not invent companies, figures, dates, quotes or outcomes. Where
something cannot be verified, write UNVERIFIED and state what could not
be confirmed.
- Distinguish clearly between what a company CLAIMS and what can be
DOCUMENTED by a third party. This distinction is the point of the
exercise.
- Quote buyers verbatim. Do not paraphrase, clean up, or summarise their
language.
- Report gaps as gaps. Where evidence does not exist, say so plainly
rather than reasoning toward a conclusion.
- Close with a section titled FLAGGED UNCERTAINTIES listing everything you
could not verify.
Every competitor plotted on two axes — how much of what they say is shared, and how much of it they can prove. Then the same treatment applied to you.
Using the research already completed in this conversation, build a terrain
map of my market.
CONCEPT
Every market has a floor — THE FLATS — where competitors stand claiming
identical things that none of them can prove. Buyers there decide on price
or proximity, because those are the only differences they can verify.
HIGH GROUND is a position inside that same market that competitors cannot
occupy. Not a better claim. A dimension where the rest of the field scores
at or near zero and cannot raise the score without becoming a different
company.
I need every competitor plotted, including mine.
WHAT SURFACE TO SCORE — read this before scoring anything
Score ONLY the primary public-facing website, as a first-time buyer
encounters it. Homepage, service pages, about page.
Do NOT score education subdomains, blog archives, technical content, or
anything a buyer would reach only after already being interested. A
sophisticated framework buried three clicks deep is not the position — it
is a buried asset, and it gets recorded separately in item 8.
Score what he sees in the first sixty seconds.
SCORE EACH OF THE 20 COMPETITORS ON TWO AXES
CLAIM OVERLAP — 0 to 100.
What percentage of this company's public claims are also made by three or
more other companies in the set? High overlap means they are saying what
everyone says.
Use the attribute grid from Instrument 03B as the taxonomy. Code each
company's claims against the twelve attributes rather than assessing them
freeform — it produces a far more accurate overlap figure.
DOCUMENTATION — 0 to 100.
What percentage of this company's claims could a buyer verify before
purchasing, through a third party, without trusting them?
DOES NOT COUNT toward documentation:
- A licence or credential that every competitor in the field also holds.
A baseline requirement is not differentiation.
- Equipment or capability a buyer cannot see or verify before purchasing.
- Self-registered directory entries or self-issued identifiers.
- Testimonials, star ratings, or review volume.
- Years in business stated without a verifiable record.
DOES COUNT:
- Published pricing a buyer can read before contacting anyone.
- Published outcome data, audited records, or measurable results.
- Credentials that are genuinely rare in this specific field — state how
many of the 20 hold each one.
- Anything a buyer can independently check, in advance, without asking.
Be strict. If most of the field can produce the same evidence, it is not
documentation of difference — it is a table stake.
ASSIGN TERRAIN
THE FLATS overlap 60+ documentation 30 or less
Says what everyone says, proves nothing.
CONTESTED SLOPE overlap 60+ documentation above 30
Says what everyone says, but can back some of it.
GIMMICK GROUND overlap under 60 documentation 30 or less
Unusual claims, unverifiable. Looks like position,
is not.
HIGH GROUND overlap under 60 documentation above 30
Says something few say, and can prove it.
OUTPUT REQUIRED
1. THE PLOT. A table of all 20 companies plus mine, with both scores and
terrain assignment. Sort by documentation score, descending.
2. THE TERRAIN SUMMARY. How many companies sit in each zone? State the
distribution plainly.
3. WHERE I SIT. My company's two scores, my terrain assignment, and the
specific claims that produced each score. Be blunt. If I am on the
flats, say so and show me why.
4. THE HIGH GROUND CENSUS. Is anyone holding high ground in this market?
If yes: who, on what dimension, and what makes it unmatchable? If no,
state that the high ground in this market is unoccupied.
5. EMPTY DIMENSIONS. What could a buyer in this market reasonably want to
know, that NOBODY in the set can currently answer? List every one you
can identify. Rank them by how much the buyer would care.
6. THE ECONOMIC READ. For each empty dimension, assess why nobody occupies
it. Is it that they cannot do it yet, that their business model
prevents it, that occupying it would cost them revenue, or that it has
simply never occurred to anyone in the industry? State which.
7. WHAT SEPARATES ME. Excluding marketing language, reviews and
self-reported experience: name anything my company holds that a
competitor could not replicate without becoming a different company.
If the honest answer is nothing yet, say so.
8. BURIED ASSETS — score these separately and do not let them raise my
position on the map.
What does my company hold that is genuinely unusual, but that a
first-time buyer would never encounter? Deep content on a secondary
domain, capability not described publicly, accumulated records,
relationships, tenure, data.
For each: is it visible on the primary site, and could a competitor
acquire it with money?
**State plainly whether my map position and my actual holdings agree.**
A business can hold high-ground materials and occupy flats positioning
at the same time. If that is the case here, say so directly — it is the
single most useful finding this research can produce.
RESEARCH STANDARDS — follow these strictly.
- Cite a named, verifiable source for every factual claim. Company website,
filing, review platform, forum thread, publication — with enough detail
that it can be checked.
- Do not invent companies, figures, dates, quotes or outcomes. Where
something cannot be verified, write UNVERIFIED and state what could not
be confirmed.
- Distinguish clearly between what a company CLAIMS and what can be
DOCUMENTED by a third party. This distinction is the point of the
exercise.
- Quote buyers verbatim. Do not paraphrase, clean up, or summarise their
language.
- Report gaps as gaps. Where evidence does not exist, say so plainly
rather than reasoning toward a conclusion.
- Close with a section titled FLAGGED UNCERTAINTIES listing everything you
could not verify.
Outputs the scores from Instrument 05 as a clean table. Paste that into the Map Builder and the terrain draws itself — every competitor plotted, you marked in red.
Using the terrain map scores you just produced, output the plot data as a plain table and nothing else. FORMAT — one company per line, exactly three fields separated by commas: Company Name, claim overlap score, documentation score RULES - Include every company from the terrain map, including mine. - Company names 28 characters maximum. Shorten where necessary. - Scores as plain whole numbers between 0 and 100. No percent signs. - No header row. No terrain labels. No commentary before or after. - Sort by documentation score, highest first. EXAMPLE OF THE EXACT FORMAT Acme Roofing, 84, 12 Northside Contractors, 79, 18 Summit Exteriors, 76, 24 Baker and Sons, 71, 33 My Company, 68, 41 Output only the table. Nothing else.
An unflattering read on your own position. Parity percentage, the logo test, your claim-to-evidence gap, and the honest bottom line.
Using everything researched in this conversation, give me an unflattering and specific read on my own position. MY COMPANY Company: [YOUR COMPANY NAME] What we do: [WHAT YOU ACTUALLY DO] Market / service area: [YOUR SERVICE AREA] Size: [NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES] Where we want to be in 24 months: [YOUR REVENUE GOAL] Do not soften this. An assessment that only confirms what I already believed is worthless to me. WHAT I NEED 1. THE PARITY READ. Take my public claims one at a time. For each: how many of the 20 competitors make the same claim, and can I document mine any better than they can document theirs? Give me a single percentage: how much of my positioning is shared with the field. 2. THE LOGO TEST. If my logo were removed from my website and a competitor's put in its place, what — specifically — would still identify it as mine? Name the elements, or state that none exist. 3. MY CLAIM-TO-EVIDENCE GAP. Which of my claims are asserted and not documented? List them. This is the list I have to either prove or stop making. 4. WHAT I ACTUALLY HOLD. Inventory anything real: operational history, accumulated data, relationships, capability, tenure, records, processes, physical assets, credentials. For each, mark whether it is currently visible to a buyer, and whether a competitor could acquire it with money. 5. THE UNANSWERED QUESTION. Based on the buyer language in this research, what is the single question a buyer in this market most wants answered before purchasing — that nobody, including me, currently answers? 6. THE HONEST BOTTOM LINE. In plain language: does anything currently separate my company from the field, in a way a buyer could verify before buying? If the answer is no, say it directly. RESEARCH STANDARDS — follow these strictly. - Cite a named, verifiable source for every factual claim. Company website, filing, review platform, forum thread, publication — with enough detail that it can be checked. - Do not invent companies, figures, dates, quotes or outcomes. Where something cannot be verified, write UNVERIFIED and state what could not be confirmed. - Distinguish clearly between what a company CLAIMS and what can be DOCUMENTED by a third party. This distinction is the point of the exercise. - Quote buyers verbatim. Do not paraphrase, clean up, or summarise their language. - Report gaps as gaps. Where evidence does not exist, say so plainly rather than reasoning toward a conclusion. - Close with a section titled FLAGGED UNCERTAINTIES listing everything you could not verify.
Everything compiled into one briefing document. This is what you bring to the session.
Compile everything researched in this conversation into a single briefing
document. This will be read by a strategist, so favour findings over
narrative and never pad.
MY COMPANY
Company: [YOUR COMPANY NAME]
What we do: [WHAT YOU ACTUALLY DO]
Market / service area: [YOUR SERVICE AREA]
Business type: [BUSINESS TYPE]
Where we want to be in 24 months: [YOUR REVENUE GOAL]
STRUCTURE THE DOCUMENT EXACTLY AS FOLLOWS
1. THE FIELD
The market, the number of real competitors, and the structural shape of
how they compete. Three paragraphs maximum.
2. WHAT BUYERS SAY
The five strongest verbatim quotes from the research, each with what it
reveals. Quote exactly.
3. THE ATTRIBUTE GRID
The twelve performance attributes for this business type, with claim
count, documentation count and complaint count for each. Then the
empty cells, and the descent target with its reasoning.
4. THE PARITY FINDING
How much of the field says the same things. The overlap table in
condensed form. State how many claims in this market can be documented
by anyone at all.
5. THE TERRAIN MAP
All competitors plus my company, with both scores and terrain
assignment. Then: how many sit on the flats, and is anyone holding high
ground.
6. WHERE I SIT
My scores, my zone, and the specific reasons. Unflattering where
accurate.
And state explicitly whether my map position and my actual holdings
agree. If I hold unusual assets that a first-time buyer would never
encounter, say so — that gap is a finding, not a footnote.
7. THE FORMATION WINDOW
How long buyers spend pre-vocabulary, what they say during it, what
they buy instead, and who is standing there. State plainly whether any
provider in this category is present.
8. SURFACE OCCUPANCY
The four-cell matrix. Which cells are contested and which are empty.
9. EMPTY GROUND
Every dimension nobody in the market currently occupies, ranked by
buyer impact, each with the economic reason nobody is there.
10. WHAT I HOLD
Everything real and unreplicable, marked visible or invisible to
buyers, and acquirable or unacquirable by a competitor.
11. THE UNANSWERED QUESTION
The one thing buyers most want to know that nobody answers.
12. FLAGGED UNCERTAINTIES
Everything in this research that could not be verified, including
claims made by my own company.
OUTPUT AS A DOCUMENT
Produce this as a formatted document — a canvas, artifact or document
file — not as a chat reply. I need to save it, print it, and bring it
with me.
Title it: POSITION DOSSIER — [YOUR COMPANY NAME]
FORMAT
Findings, not prose. Tables where tables are clearer. Every claim sourced.
Nothing invented. Where the research did not establish something, say so
rather than filling the gap.
Number every section. Keep it under twelve pages.
This document is the starting material for a working session. Its value is
in being accurate, not in being encouraging.
Instrument 05B gives you a plain table of scores. Take it to the Map Builder and the terrain renders — every competitor plotted, you marked in red, with the zone counts underneath.
Nothing is uploaded. It draws in your browser and you can download it as a vector file to bring with you.
Open The Map BuilderInstrument 07 produces the document. Bring it to a session.
You will arrive with a stack of findings and no position. That gap is the entire point of the exercise.
The instruments produce raw material — where you rank, what anyone in your field can actually prove, which ground is contested and which is standing empty. What they cannot produce is the thing that occupies the empty ground, because that is an act of invention rather than research.
That is what the room is for.
See The Next SessionEvery instrument here is written to be run by the business owner. Most are.
If you would rather have it run for you and walked through — the research executed, the terrain map built, and the dossier assembled and read back to you in a working session — that can be arranged. It produces the same document. The difference is whether you spend the ninety minutes.
Nothing on this page is collected or transmitted · Research output is generated by third-party AI tools and should be verified before acting on it
CEO High Ground · The Definitive Conclusion · Edwin Earle Jacobi III