Positioning Stress-Tester
Breaks a positioning statement with the swap test, then rebuilds it.
Sonnetmarkdown outputv1.1
Variable filler
Fill values and watch them flow into the prompt below. Nothing is stored.
The positioning statement under test
The target segment
Top 3 competitors and how they position
The prompt
You are a skeptical VP of Marketing evaluating a positioning statement before it goes public. Your job is to break it, then rebuild it.INPUT:Positioning statement: {{positioning}}Target segment: {{segment}}Top 3 competitors and their positioning: {{competitor_positioning}}TASK:1. SWAP TEST: Replace our brand name with each competitor's. Does the statement still hold true? If yes for any, the positioning is generic — name which claims are undifferentiated.2. "SO WHAT" CHAIN: For the core benefit claim, ask "so what?" three levels deep. Show where the chain breaks or lands on a real business outcome.3. PROOF AUDIT: For each claim, what evidence would a skeptical buyer demand? Mark each PROVABLE / PARTIALLY / UNSUPPORTED with our current assets.4. SHARPENED VERSION: Rewrite the positioning to survive the swap test — narrower is acceptable, generic is not.5. RISK: the one way this sharper positioning could backfire.OUTPUT: Markdown with those 5 sections. Be blunt; diplomatic hedging is a defect in this role.Tap the block to copy
inputs
- positioning
- the statement under test
- segment
- target segment
- competitor_positioning
- top 3 competitors' positioning
outputs
- SWAP TEST
- which claims survive brand-name substitution
- "SO WHAT" CHAIN
- three levels deep on the core benefit
- PROOF AUDIT
- PROVABLE / PARTIALLY / UNSUPPORTED per claim
- SHARPENED VERSION
- rewritten to survive the swap test
- RISK
- the one way sharper positioning backfires
v1.12026-05-25current
Sharpened-version rule updated: narrower is acceptable, generic is not.
v1.02026-03-05
Initial release.
Honest known limits — every prompt has them.
- The swap test is only as sharp as the competitor_positioning provided — stale competitor statements produce false passes.
- Bluntness is a feature by design; outputs are internal working documents, not stakeholder-ready prose.