# POSITIONING_BRIEF.md ## 1. Mandate, Audience, and Definition of Done **Outcome.** This positioning exists to move the perception of two independently-acquired project-management products — referred to internally only as Legacy Product A and Legacy Product B — into a single, coherent perception of one unified product under [NEW BRAND NAME], in the minds of (a) the existing customer base of both legacy products, and (b) net-new prospective buyers encountering the product for the first time on the unified website. The shift being engineered is from "two tools I have to reconcile, one of which might get sunset out from under me" to "one product that already does what I needed, now with more behind it." This is a post-acquisition consolidation positioning, not a launch-from-zero positioning: the audience already has expectations, and the statement must survive contact with both legacy user bases without triggering churn. **Stakeholders.** Final statement approval sits with the brand/marketing lead accountable for the unified go-to-market. Legal/trademark sign-off sits with IP counsel, and is a hard gate on both the new brand name and any comparative or superlative language (Section 10). Cross-channel application (website, sales deck, product UI, support macros, migration emails to legacy customers) is owned jointly by product marketing and the web/design team executing the 8-week launch. **Requirements table** | ID | Requirement | Source | |---|---|---| | R1 | The positioning may not use either legacy brand name anywhere — statement, proof points, contracts, or usage assets | Supplied (hard constraint) | | R2 | The positioning must be locked before the unified website launches, 8 weeks from brief date | Supplied | | R3 | The positioning should draw on existing tagline and mission-statement material from both legacy brands where it still holds | Supplied | | R4 | The positioning must name a primary audience among the merged and prospective user base, not "everyone" | Gap — standard positioning discipline, not separately supplied | | R5 | The new brand name itself must clear trademark search before any public claim is made under it | Gap — necessary consequence of R1 combined with a name that has not yet been confirmed as cleared | | R6 | Legal and trademark sign-off is required before any statement, tagline, or proof point reaches a public channel | Gap — standard governance, not separately supplied | **Explicit exclusions.** This brief does not authorize: naming either legacy product publicly under any phrasing that could function as a de facto brand reference (e.g., "the tool you already know" paired with an identifying screenshot); any category-leadership, "first," "only," or "best" claim (Principle D) until Section 12 clears it; any named-competitor comparison, since no competitor was supplied and none has been current-sourced (Section 3). **Solution shape.** Research-derived: the actual current competitive landscape, the actual content of the legacy taglines/mission statements, the actual trademark status of [NEW BRAND NAME], and actual audience sentiment about the merger — all owned by the strategist executing Section 7, not decided in this brief. Creative/judgment calls made in this brief: which positioning direction to lead with (Section 6), how to segment the audience (Section 5), and the internal operational defaults named in Section 2. **Completion criteria** - R1: A legal/trademark reviewer confirms, in writing, that no legacy name, mark, or distinguishing tagline fragment appears in any asset built from Section 6's usage map. - R2/R5: A real trademark search on [NEW BRAND NAME] returns a documented clearance (or a replacement name is selected and re-checked) with enough runway before the 8-week launch date to also complete R6. - R3: A documented review of both legacy brands' tagline/mission material exists, stating which elements were reused, adapted, or discarded, and why. - R4: A single primary audience segment is named in Section 4 and is not contradicted by Section 5's contracts. - R6: Every action in Section 12 shows either a completed sign-off with a name and date, or a documented BLOCKED status — never a blank left silently unresolved. A finished tagline, on its own, is **not** completion. Completion is defined in Section 13 and requires resolved validation, run tests, and recorded approvals — not a sentence that reads well internally. ## 2. Brand Strategist Instructions ``` Develop this positioning against the real competitive landscape, not a simulation of it. Review current competitor sites, category coverage, and existing brand guidelines first. Preserve any prior positioning work that still holds and is worth reusing. Resolve every <VALIDATE> item through current research, a real trademark search, or real audience testing — not internal guesswork. Produce an actual statement and proof points grounded in named sources; do not stop at a plausible-sounding line. Run the message test defined in Section 9, read the actual results, and revise the statement before it is used publicly. Stop defending an unchanged statement once contradicting feedback appears; report a concrete blocker when progress needs legal review, trademark filing, or data outside your authority. Do not leave a superlative or comparative claim unverified in "final" copy, invented competitor weaknesses, fabricated test results, or a trademark status you have not actually checked. Continue safe, internal drafting while a publication-critical validation is pending. Publish the statement or file a trademark only within approved authority. Report progress using actual test and search results, and clearly separate draft, tested, and legally cleared status. Operational defaults (which internal doc houses the style guide, which channels get the statement first) may be chosen and documented autonomously. Do not autonomously invent legal clearance or claim a trademark search was run when it was not. ``` In particular: do not assume `<new-brand-trademark-clearance>` has been confirmed just because a name has been chosen internally, and do not allow a legacy brand name, logo mark, or identifying tagline fragment from either acquired product to surface anywhere in the new positioning under launch-deadline pressure — that is a hard constraint from the acquisition agreement's sunset clause, not a creative default to relax. ## 3. Market and Competitive Assumption Ledger | ID | Claim | Source | Confidence | Consequence if wrong | |---|---|---|---|---| | A1 | Customers migrated from both legacy products currently perceive the acquisition as a risk to continuity, pricing, or feature parity | Unverified — `<VALIDATE: user-sentiment-on-merger>` | Low | The "reassurance" framing in Section 4 could read as addressing a fear that doesn't actually exist, wasting the differentiator slot | | A2 | Legacy Product A and Legacy Product B users have overlapping but not identical core use cases | Unverified — `<VALIDATE: overlap-of-use-cases>` | Low | The unified proof points could overpromise parity for one legacy base while underselling the other | | A3 | A defined net-new buyer segment, distinct from both legacy bases, is the intended growth audience for [NEW BRAND NAME] | Unverified — `<VALIDATE: growth-audience-definition>` | Low | Message contracts in Section 5 could target a segment that marketing has not actually prioritized | | A4 | [NEW BRAND NAME] will compete in the general project-management software category against established players | Unverified — `<VALIDATE: current-competitor-positioning>` | Medium | Positioning against stale or wrong competitive claims risks an inaccurate differentiator | | A5 | The category currently views acquisition-driven product consolidation with some skepticism (a "bolted-together" concern) | Unverified — `<VALIDATE: category-perception-of-consolidation>` | Low | The reassurance angle in Section 6's selected direction could be solving a non-problem | | A6 | [NEW BRAND NAME] is available for trademark registration and does not conflict with residual rights held by either legacy brand | Unverified — `<VALIDATE: new-brand-trademark-clearance>` (publication-critical) | Low | The entire positioning is unusable in public if the name is not clearable; this blocks every Section 12 action | | A7 | Neither legacy brand name, logo, or tagline may appear anywhere in the new positioning, per the acquisition agreement's sunset clause | Supplied (hard constraint) | — | Contractual/legal exposure if violated; not a matter of confidence | | A8 | The existing tagline and mission-statement material from both legacy brands contains differentiators that are reusable independent of the legacy names themselves | Unverified — `<VALIDATE: legacy-material-reusability>` | Medium | Proof points drafted from unreviewed legacy material could accidentally restate content still tied to a retired name or an unowned claim | **Ranking.** The three assumptions whose failure would most invalidate this positioning, in order: (1) A6 — if the new brand name cannot clear trademark, every downstream statement, proof point, and asset in this brief is built on a name that cannot ship; (2) A4 — if the current competitive landscape is materially different from what this brief assumes, the differentiator in Section 4 may not actually differentiate; (3) A1 — if merger anxiety is not the audience's actual concern, the reassurance framing selected in Section 6 solves the wrong problem. Section 9's testing must probe these three first. ## 4. Positioning Statement and Proof Points ``` For teams already running their work through Legacy Product A or Legacy Product B, who need one connected system instead of two partially-overlapping tools, [NEW BRAND NAME] is the project management platform that brings both products' proven capabilities into a single unified workspace, because it is built and actively invested in by one dedicated team instead of two separately maintained ones. ``` **Primary audience:** existing users of either legacy product, migrating into one workspace (see Segment Contracts, Section 5). Net-new buyers are a secondary contract, not the primary claim driver, pending `<VALIDATE: growth-audience-definition>`. **Differentiator, sourced:** "one unified workspace replacing two overlapping tools" traces to A2 (use-case overlap) and A7/R1 (cannot name the legacy products, so the differentiator must be framed structurally — one system vs. two — rather than feature-by-feature). **Proof points:** 1. **[Aspirational, pending A8]** Core workflows from both legacy products carry over into the unified workspace without requiring users to relearn or re-import their work. 2. **[Aspirational, pending A6]** The product operates under one brand, one roadmap, and one support channel going forward — replacing the "which tool do I open" ambiguity. 3. **[Aspirational, pending A2]** Feature investment is now concentrated on a single codebase, rather than split across two separately maintained products. 4. **[Aspirational, pending A1]** Migration is designed to preserve existing data, integrations, and account history for customers of both legacy products. 5. **[Current-fact, pending confirmation of underlying figures]** [NEW BRAND NAME] combines the customer base and operating history of two previously independent, already-shipping products — a factual claim once the actual combined history and figures are confirmed and cited. **This brand will NOT claim:** category leadership, "first," "only," or "best" status of any kind, and will not name or imply comparison to any named competitor, until Section 12 clears such a claim with a checkable basis. **Internal ledger citations:** Proof point 1 → A8 (draft-only until legacy material review). Proof point 2 → A6 (draft-only, publication-critical, cannot ship until trademark clears). Proof point 3 → A2 (draft-only, routine validation). Proof point 4 → A1 (draft-only, publication-critical, cannot ship until audience-tested). Proof point 5 → requires sourcing actual combined operating figures, not yet supplied. **Evidence rule:** This is a draft statement for review, not cleared copy. It is not authorized for any public channel until it passes the approvals recorded in Section 12. ## 5. Audience Segment and Message Contracts **Segment 1 — Existing Legacy Product A customers** - Segment description: active accounts currently on Legacy Product A at time of merger. - Core need addressed: confidence that current workflows, data, and integrations survive the transition. - Message emphasis: continuity and investment, not novelty. - Proof points used: 1, 2, 4. - Channels: migration email sequence, in-product banner, support macros. - Owner: product marketing (migration comms lead). **Segment 2 — Existing Legacy Product B customers** - Segment description: active accounts currently on Legacy Product B at time of merger. - Core need addressed: same continuity concern as Segment 1, but must not assume identical use-case overlap (A2 unresolved). - Message emphasis: continuity and investment, framed generically enough to hold even if A2 resolves toward "different, not overlapping" use cases. - Proof points used: 1, 2, 4. - Channels: migration email sequence, in-product banner, support macros. - Owner: product marketing (migration comms lead). **Segment 3 — Net-new prospective buyers** - Segment description: buyers with no prior relationship to either legacy product, encountering [NEW BRAND NAME] for the first time. Precise definition of this segment is itself pending `<VALIDATE: growth-audience-definition>`. - Core need addressed: general project-management need, evaluated on the merits of the unified product alone. - Message emphasis: proof point 3 and 5 (product strength, combined operating history), with continuity language de-emphasized since it is not their concern. - Proof points used: 3, 5. - Channels: unified website hero and pricing pages, sales deck opener, PR boilerplate. - Owner: brand/marketing lead. **Not addressed by this positioning:** internal employees of the acquired companies and channel partners are explicitly excluded as a message-contract audience — their transition is handled through internal change-management and partner communications, not the customer-facing brand positioning drafted here. **Internal vs. external claim separation.** The segment descriptions, "core need addressed," and internal ledger citations in this section and Section 4 are strategic rationale only and must never reach a customer directly. Only the fenced positioning statement in Section 4, its five labeled proof points (once each individually cleared per Section 12), and assets built from Section 6's usage map may reach a public or customer-facing surface. ## 6. Statement Architecture and Usage Map | Direction | Differentiation strength | Defensibility | Fit to trigger (post-acquisition consolidation) | Disposition | |---|---|---|---|---| | Category leader | Weak without `<VALIDATE: current-competitor-positioning>` — no supplied basis for a leadership claim | Low — invites legal exposure under Principle D | Poor — leadership claims don't address the actual audience anxiety (continuity) | Rejected | | Challenger / unified consolidator | Moderate — differentiation is structural (one system vs. two), not feature-based, and doesn't require unverified competitive data | Moderate — defensible as long as R1's name-avoidance is respected | Strong — directly addresses the consolidation trigger and the continuity anxiety in A1 | **Selected** | | Category creator | Weak — no white-space evidence supplied; asserting a new category without data is exactly the kind of invented claim Principle B prohibits | Low | Poor — overreach relative to what is actually known at this stage | Rejected | **Selected: Unified/consolidator direction.** This satisfies R1 (no legacy names needed — the claim is structural) and R4 (names a clear primary audience: the merged existing base) without depending on any unresolved competitive claim. **Usage map** | Asset | Draws from contract | Owner | |---|---|---| | Unified website hero | Segment 3 | Brand/marketing lead | | Sales deck opener | Segment 3 | Sales enablement | | PR boilerplate | Segment 3 | Communications | | Migration email sequence | Segments 1 and 2 | Product marketing (migration comms lead) | | In-product transition banner | Segments 1 and 2 | Product marketing (migration comms lead) | | Internal onboarding / brand guideline doc | All segments, internal-only rationale from Section 5 | Brand/marketing lead | **Deliberately not used:** direct or indirect naming of either legacy product; any named-competitor comparison; any superlative ("best," "only," "first," "leading"). No claim beyond those listed in Section 4 is authorized by this document. ## 7. Validation and Competitive Research Requirements | Entry | What must be established | How to establish it | Dependent items | Status until resolved (if publication-critical) | |---|---|---|---|---| | `new-brand-trademark-clearance` | Whether [NEW BRAND NAME] is registrable and free of conflict with either legacy brand's residual marks | Run a real trademark search/filing review | Blocks Proof point 2, and every Section 12 action | Internal-draft-only; the name and all statements built on it are non-public until cleared | | `user-sentiment-on-merger` | Whether existing customers of either legacy product actually perceive the merger as a continuity risk | Run a real audience test with both legacy customer bases | Blocks Proof point 4, and Segment 1/2 message emphasis | Internal-draft-only; continuity framing is unverified until tested | | `current-competitor-positioning` | What named category competitors currently claim, and where real white space exists | Check current public competitive/market data before finalizing | Informs Proof point 5's framing and Segment 3 emphasis | Not publication-critical; does not block internal drafting | | `category-perception-of-consolidation` | Whether the category currently views acquisition-driven consolidation with skepticism | Check current public competitive/market data before finalizing | Informs whether the selected direction (Section 6) needs a stronger reassurance angle | Not publication-critical | | `overlap-of-use-cases` | The actual degree of use-case overlap between Legacy Product A and Legacy Product B users | Check existing product usage analytics before finalizing | Blocks Proof point 3 and Segment 2's assumption of shared framing with Segment 1 | Not publication-critical | | `growth-audience-definition` | The specific net-new buyer segment marketing intends to prioritize | Check current internal market-segmentation data before finalizing | Blocks Segment 3's definition and its channel targeting | Not publication-critical | | `legacy-material-reusability` | Which specific elements of both legacy taglines/mission statements are reusable independent of the retired brand names | Check existing legacy brand material before finalizing | Blocks Proof point 1 | Not publication-critical | **Existing-data-first.** Before commissioning new research or testing, check existing brand tracking, sales win/loss notes, product usage analytics, and both legacy brands' prior positioning material — several items above (`overlap-of-use-cases`, `legacy-material-reusability`, `growth-audience-definition`) may already be answerable from data the organization already holds. No competitive claim above is to be quoted without a current source; none is invented for plausibility. ## 8. Rollout Sequence and Requirement Traceability 1. Finalize candidate [NEW BRAND NAME] internally. *(R5)* 2. Run real trademark search on the candidate name. *(A6, blocks 3–9)* 3. Review existing legacy tagline/mission material for reusable, name-independent content. *(R3, A8)* 4. Review existing product usage analytics for use-case overlap. *(A2)* 5. Review existing internal segmentation data to define the net-new buyer segment. *(A3)* 6. Check current public competitive data for the project-management category. *(A4, A5)* 7. Finalize proof points 1, 3, and 5 using outputs of steps 3–6. *(Section 4)* 8. Run small-pilot audience test on merger-continuity messaging with a sample from both legacy bases. *(A1, blocks Proof point 4)* 9. Run legal/trademark review of the full statement and every proof point against R1 — a deterministic check independent of this brief's own drafting rules. *(R1, R6)* 10. Roll out cleared assets per the Section 6 usage map, sequenced migration comms (Segments 1–2) before net-new-facing assets (Segment 3), since continuity is the more time-sensitive risk. 11. Report status of any unresolved publication-critical item (`new-brand-trademark-clearance`, `user-sentiment-on-merger`) before any asset goes live. *(R6)* **Traceability** | Requirement/Assumption | Asset/Claim | Owner | Acceptance check | |---|---|---|---| | R1 | Every asset in Section 6's usage map | Legal/IP counsel | Documented review confirms no legacy name/mark/tagline fragment present | | R2 | Full rollout sequence, steps 1–11 | Brand/marketing lead | All steps complete before the 8-week website launch date | | R3 | Proof point 1 | Product marketing | Legacy material review document exists and is cited | | R5/A6 | [NEW BRAND NAME] itself | IP counsel | Trademark search result on file, dated | | A1 | Proof point 4, Segment 1/2 emphasis | Research/product marketing | Small-pilot audience test result on file | | A2 | Proof point 3, Segment 2 contract | Product marketing | Usage analytics review on file | | A4/A5 | Proof point 5, Section 6 direction choice | Competitive/market research | Current competitive data summary on file, dated | | R6 | Section 12 approval register | Legal/IP counsel + brand lead | Every action row shows sign-off or documented BLOCKED status | ## 9. Message Testing and Readiness Checks All test audiences and sample sizes referenced below are small-scale internal or pilot samples, not a statistically representative read of the full market; a row's result is real only once the test has actually been run. Where a `<VALIDATE>` item stands in for full market data, the testing note below states plainly that a pilot PASS leaves broad market reception unverified. | Assumption/Req | Test level | Audience/method | Expected result | Pass condition | Prerequisites | |---|---|---|---|---|---| | R1 (no legacy names) | internal-review | Legal/IP counsel manual review of statement + all proof points | No legacy name, mark, or tagline fragment found | Zero flagged instances | Steps 1–9 complete | | A1 / Proof point 4 | small-pilot-test | Sample of current customers from both legacy bases | Continuity framing reads as reassuring, not alarming | Majority read "reassured" over "concerned" in structured feedback | Step 8 | | A1 — "confusing" variant | small-pilot-test | Same sample, asked to paraphrase the statement back | Paraphrase correctly identifies "one product now, not two" | Majority correctly restate the core claim | Step 8 | | A1 — "unbelievable" variant | small-pilot-test | Same sample, asked to rate believability of continuity claim | Claim is rated plausible, not overpromised | Majority rate "believable" | Step 8 | | R1 / superlative check | internal-review | Legal review of every proof point for comparative/superlative language | No unflagged superlative present | Zero flagged instances | Step 9 | | A6 (trademark) | internal-review | IP counsel search result | Name is clear or a fallback is triggered | Documented clearance on file | Step 2 | | Fallback framing | small-pilot-test | Same sample as A1 test, alternate statement without continuity emphasis | Alternate statement tested in parallel in case primary underperforms | Comparable or better reassurance score than primary | Step 8 | | Full-rollout adoption | full-rollout | All customers + net-new market, post-launch | NOT RUN until Section 12 approvals granted | Sales/support teams use the statement correctly unprompted | All Section 12 actions APPROVED | A small-pilot-test PASS demonstrates only that the statement is not obviously broken, confusing, or alarming to a small sample — it does not demonstrate that the broader market adopts the framing. Only full-rollout data, gathered after launch, demonstrates actual market adoption; the two are never to be reported as equivalent. ## 10. Legal, Trademark, and Governance Boundaries - **BLOCKING.** Publishing any asset while `new-brand-trademark-clearance` or `user-sentiment-on-merger` remains unresolved is not authorized under this brief. No exception exists for launch-deadline pressure. - **HIGH RISK.** An unverified superlative or comparative claim reaching public copy creates direct legal exposure; the backstop is the mandatory legal/trademark review at rollout step 9 (Section 8), not informal self-review by the drafting team. - **BOUNDARY.** No competitor may be named in public copy under this brief; category-level statements (e.g., "the project-management category") are permitted, named-competitor comparison is not, pending a separate, explicitly scoped legal review if that changes. - **NEVER-SHIP LIST.** An unverified "first," "only," or "best" claim; any use of a legacy brand name, mark, or tagline fragment; any trademark claim on [NEW BRAND NAME] made before clearance is on file. - **CROSS-TEAM CONTROL.** A brand-guideline violation across teams (sales deck, support macros, PR) is caught via the mandatory legal/trademark review gate at rollout step 9, applied to every asset in the Section 6 usage map before its individual go-live — not via a single global review at the end. - **REGULATED CATEGORY.** Project-management software as described is not a supplied regulated category (no health or finance claims indicated); if a future feature claim touches billing, financial reporting, or health-adjacent workflows, that claim requires separate regulated-category legal review not covered by this brief. - **GENUINELY UNASSESSABLE UNTIL RESOLVED.** The overall legal exposure of the positioning as a whole cannot be finally assessed until both publication-critical items in Section 7 — `new-brand-trademark-clearance` and `user-sentiment-on-merger` — are resolved; every risk statement above is provisional until then. ## 11. Rollout, Verification, and Correction Plan **Internal preparation (runnable now).** Statement drafting, proof-point sourcing from existing data, brand-guideline document drafting, and internal legal pre-review can proceed immediately; they do not require the publication-critical validations to be resolved. **Blocked on validation.** Any asset in the Section 6 usage map reaching a customer or the public is blocked until `new-brand-trademark-clearance` and `user-sentiment-on-merger` resolve. **Approved pilot use.** Gated by Section 12; each pilot action's block status is recorded there individually — approving one pilot action does not approve another. **Expanded-rollout checks.** Before company-wide adoption, every asset in the usage map receives a full review against R1 and the never-ship list in Section 10, not a sampled subset. **Approved full rollout — AND conditions, all required:** - All Section 9 tests pass at their stated level (small-pilot rows PASS; full-rollout rows are, by definition, not yet run before this point). - All applicable Section 12 actions show APPROVED, not just READY FOR HUMAN REVIEW. - Both publication-critical Section 7 items are marked RESOLVED, not draft-stubbed or assumed. **Post-rollout verification.** Within the first usage window after the website launch, confirm one concrete, low-cost check: that the sales team is actually using the new statement correctly in live conversations (spot-check a sample of recent calls or deck usage), and separately confirm that no excluded claim from Section 1's explicit-exclusions list was accidentally shipped in any live asset. **Correction.** Before assuming any update reaches existing customers, confirm which channels currently carry the old statement (e.g., cached marketing pages, printed sales collateral, support macros). Updating the internal brand guideline does not retroactively correct assets already printed or published — containment means identifying and re-issuing those specific assets, not assuming a silent, automatic fix. ## 12. Publication and Filing Approval Register | Action ID | Purpose | Asset/Channel/Scope | Expected effect | Trigger condition | Status | Approved by / Date | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | P1 | File trademark application for [NEW BRAND NAME] | Legal filing, all relevant jurisdictions | Secures legal right to use the name publicly | Trademark search clear | BLOCKED BY VALIDATION (`new-brand-trademark-clearance`) | ____ / ____ | | P2 | Approve statement for public website launch | Unified website hero, Segment 3 | Statement goes live to net-new buyers | P1 approved; small-pilot tests (Section 9) pass | BLOCKED BY VALIDATION (`new-brand-trademark-clearance`, `user-sentiment-on-merger`); also blocked on P1 | ____ / ____ | | P3 | Approve migration messaging to Legacy Product A customers | Migration email sequence, in-product banner (Segment 1) | Continuity messaging reaches existing Legacy A base | Small-pilot continuity test (Section 9) passes | BLOCKED BY VALIDATION (`user-sentiment-on-merger`) | ____ / ____ | | P4 | Approve migration messaging to Legacy Product B customers | Migration email sequence, in-product banner (Segment 2) | Continuity messaging reaches existing Legacy B base | Small-pilot continuity test (Section 9) passes; `overlap-of-use-cases` reviewed | BLOCKED BY VALIDATION (`user-sentiment-on-merger`) | ____ / ____ | | P5 | Approve sales deck opener and PR boilerplate for Segment 3 | Sales enablement, communications | Net-new-facing assets go live | P2 approved | Blocked on P2 | ____ / ____ | | P6 | Retire legacy brand assets per sunset clause | Both legacy products' public sites, marketing material | Legacy names/marks removed from public use per acquisition agreement | Migration comms (P3, P4) complete | READY FOR HUMAN REVIEW (no validation blocker; timing decision only) | ____ / ____ | Approving any one action above never implies approval of another; each requires its own sign-off. Listing the retirement action (P6) here documents the decision point — it does not authorize executing it now. ## 13. Completion Evidence and Handoff A final report against this brief must contain: - Every asset in the Section 6 usage map, mapped to its real deployed name or URL once live — not the placeholder names used in this brief. - Every Section 9 test row, itemized PASS / FAIL / NOT RUN / BLOCKED, each with one line of actual evidence (e.g., "small-pilot continuity test: PASS — 8/10 sampled customers in a structured survey read the statement as reassuring, dated [date]"). - Pilot-tested and fully validated claims reported separately: a small-pilot PASS is never presented as evidence of full market reception, and the report must say so explicitly wherever a pilot result is cited. - Actual legal/trademark clearance status, stated as fact only if the clearance actually occurred, with the filing or search reference; otherwise stated plainly as "NOT YET CLEARED." - The named status of every unresolved Section 7 item at handoff — `new-brand-trademark-clearance`, `user-sentiment-on-merger`, and any of the five routine items still open. - Any residual limitation still true at handoff (e.g., "Segment 3's precise definition remains provisional pending `growth-audience-definition`"). - Exact next steps required to close any outstanding validation or approval item, with an owner and a date. Fabricating legal clearance, test results, or approvals in this report is prohibited without exception. An internally-loved statement, on its own, is not evidence that the positioning works in market — that evidence comes only from the full-rollout data described in Section 9, gathered after the conditions in Section 11 are actually met.