Back to Details

organic-first-campaign

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Organic-First Campaign

优先自然流量的营销活动

A campaign-design skill for organizations and people who cannot win by outspending. It ideates campaign concepts across every major archetype, audits the user's spend asymmetry against their competition, assembles an organic-first channel stack, sets strict boost gates on any paid spend, and produces a lift-test plan so the user measures incremental impact rather than vanity metrics.
一款专为无法靠砸钱取胜的组织和个人打造的活动设计工具。它能构思各类主流模式的活动概念，评估用户与竞争对手的预算差距，搭建以自然流量为核心的渠道矩阵，对任何付费支出设置严格的推广门槛，并制定效果测试方案，让用户衡量实际增量影响而非虚荣指标。

Core Premise

核心前提

Paid media scales attention. Organic narrative and grassroots networks scale trust. When trust is the bottleneck — and in 2025–2026, for most underdogs, it is — additional ad spend hits diminishing and then negative returns. Saturation, inauthenticity, and narrative incoherence produce reactance, not persuasion. The leverage point is not reach; it is credibility and message-market fit.
Empirical spine:
  • Academic field experiments show digital ad ROI confidence intervals are so wide that most campaigns cannot be statistically distinguished from zero lift (Lewis & Rao, "The Unfavorable Economics of Measuring the Returns to Advertising," Quarterly Journal of Economics 2015). Meta and Google both ship Conversion Lift / Brand Lift tools precisely because they distinguish attributed conversions from incremental conversions — the platforms' own tooling is the tacit admission that dashboard ROAS is not causal.
  • Across 18,000+ brands, CPA rose in 13/14 industries in 2025; ROAS fell in 13/14; conversion rates fell in 13/14. More money is buying fewer results.
  • Facebook organic engagement sits near 0.15%, Instagram ~0.50%, X ~0.15%, TikTok ~2.50% — still the best organic window but compressing fast.
  • Meta and Google both ended political/issue ads in the EU in October 2025, removing paid channels entirely for large categories and forcing organic to carry the campaign.
  • Under the most extreme spending asymmetry imaginable (a grassroots party vs. a €4B state-backed communications apparatus with foreign support), the side with near-zero paid media won a parliamentary supermajority in Hungary in April 2026 — see 
    references/hungarian-case-study.md
    .
The same curve bends commercial advertising. The skill treats paid as an amplifier of proven organic winners, never as a standalone channel.
付费媒体扩大曝光量，自然流量叙事和草根网络建立并放大信任。 当信任成为瓶颈——在2025-2026年，大多数弱势参与者都面临这一问题——额外的广告投入会先进入收益递减阶段，随后转为负收益。信息饱和、不真实感及叙事不一致会引发用户抵触，而非说服。关键杠杆点不是触达量，而是公信力与消息-市场匹配度（MMF）。
实证依据：
  • 学术实地实验显示，数字广告ROI的置信区间极宽，大多数活动的效果在统计上与零提升无显著差异（Lewis & Rao, "The Unfavorable Economics of Measuring the Returns to Advertising," Quarterly Journal of Economics 2015）。Meta和Google推出Conversion Lift/Brand Lift工具，正是因为他们能区分归因转化与增量转化——平台自身的工具就默认承认了仪表盘ROAS不具备因果性。
  • 2025年，在18000+品牌中，14个行业里有13个行业的CPA上升、ROAS下降、转化率下降。投入更多资金却获得更少成果。
  • Facebook自然互动率约为0.15%，Instagram约0.50%，X约0.15%，TikTok约2.50%——仍是最佳自然流量窗口，但正在快速收窄。
  • Meta和Google于2025年10月在欧盟停止了政治/议题类广告，这让大量活动完全失去付费渠道，只能依赖自然流量开展。
  • 在极端预算差距场景下（草根政党vs获得外国支持、预算达40亿欧元的官方宣传机构），几乎零付费媒体投入的一方在2026年4月匈牙利议会选举中赢得了绝对多数席位——详见
    references/hungarian-case-study.md
    。
这一规律同样适用于商业广告。本工具将付费视为已验证自然流量内容的放大器，而非独立渠道。

When to Apply This Skill

适用场景

Apply when the user:
  • Asks to plan any campaign (marketing, launch, fundraising, mobilization, awareness, turnout).
  • Describes being outspent by a competitor, incumbent, or adversary.
  • Is considering ad spend, boosts, influencer deals, or scaling a paid channel.
  • Is watching their organic reach collapse and wondering what to do.
  • Is preparing for a launch, election, fundraise, product push, or cause-led moment.
  • Is deciding between paid and organic allocation, or between channels.
Also apply when no explicit "campaign" is named but the user is debating where to invest time and money for distribution.
当用户出现以下情况时适用：
  • 要求规划任何活动（营销、发布、筹款、动员、知名度提升、投票动员）。
  • 描述自己被竞争对手、老牌企业或对手碾压预算。
  • 考虑投放广告、推广帖子、网红合作或扩大付费渠道规模。
  • 发现自然触达率下降，不知如何应对。
  • 准备开展发布、选举、筹款、产品推广或主题活动。
  • 在付费与自然流量分配、不同渠道间做决策。
即使未明确提及「活动」，但用户在讨论时间和资金的分配方向时也适用。

Workflow

工作流程

The skill runs in six stages (1, 2, 3, 3a, 4, 5). Do not skip stages; later stages depend on the user's answers and selections from earlier ones. Stage 3a (MMF Gate) can refuse the full campaign plan and route the user to validation work instead.
本工具分为六个阶段（1、2、3、3a、4、5），请勿跳过任何阶段，后续阶段依赖于用户在前期阶段的回答和选择。阶段3a（MMF门槛）可能会拒绝完整活动计划，转而引导用户进行验证工作。

Stage 1 — Interview / Brief Capture

阶段1 — 访谈/需求收集

The skill has three intake modes. Pick the mode that matches the user's brief before asking any questions.
Mode A — Full-brief mode. The user has volunteered all 8 fields below up front (in a pasted brief, a prior plan, a detailed message). Skip the interview entirely, confirm understanding in one sentence, and proceed to Stage 2.
Mode B — Interview mode. The user explicitly asks to be scoped ("help me figure out what this campaign should be," "walk me through it," "interview me"). Ask the 8 questions below via 
AskUserQuestion
in batches of ≤4 per call. Do not invent answers. Do not merge questions.
Mode C — Default mode (for terse briefs). The user gave a short brief (≤2 sentences) without asking for an interview. This is the common case. Do NOT run the full 8-question interview — it turns a 12-word prompt into an interrogation. Instead:
  1. Always-capture fields (ask once, batched). Four fields are too material to default silently; getting them wrong produces a generic plan. Send one 
    AskUserQuestion
    call with up to 4 questions covering:
    • Outcome — what specific action is the campaign driving (signups, ticket sales, votes, donations, attendance, pre-orders, qualified demos)?
    • Audience — who is the target? Who experiences the problem? Geography, seniority, community membership. "Everyone interested in AI" is not an audience; "London-based senior AI/ML engineers at Series A–C startups" is.
    • Sector — pick from the 6 riders in 
      references/sector-riders.md
      (
      cohort-education
      , 
      b2b-saas
      , 
      ngo
      , 
      consumer-brand
      , 
      political-civic
      , 
      personal-brand
      ), or 
      other
      with a one-sentence description. The sector rider materially changes Stage 4 channel weighting and Stage 5 archetype defaults.
    • Budget — what can you actually spend per month (€0 / <€1k / €1k–10k / €10k+) and what is the competitor's rough spend (unknown / similar / 5× ours / 50×+ ours)? Budget materially changes Stage 3 asymmetry classification and Stage 4 paid-channel availability. Never default this silently.
    If one of these four fields is already clearly present in the user's brief, drop it from the 
    AskUserQuestion
    call. Only ask what is missing.
  2. Default-with-flag fields. The remaining fields default silently but are surfaced in an Assumptions table at the top of the final deliverable (Stage 5 output). The user can confirm or adjust inline after reading the plan:
    FieldDefault under terse brief
    Competition (specifics)Abstract — "cohort-based courses in the category," "mid-size SaaS competitors," etc. Use the heuristic questions in 
    references/asymmetry-audit-table.md
    to classify asymmetry qualitatively. Never invent specific competitor names.
    Existing channels / traction"Starting from zero" unless the user's brief, working directory, or CLAUDE.md clearly indicates an existing newsletter, community, or follower base.
    BottleneckTrust (the 2025–2026 default for almost every underdog campaign).
    Time window60 days to a single dated anchor moment (event, launch, election), then recurring cadence.
    Capacity6h/week.
  3. Escalation rule. If a missing field would materially change the Stage 3 asymmetry classification or the Stage 4 primary-function choice, do not default it — add it to the 
    AskUserQuestion
    call. Example: if the user mentions "our whole team is posting already" but does not specify which channels, ask, because it changes the channel stack.
  4. Assumptions table is mandatory under Mode C. Open the final deliverable with a table listing every defaulted field and its assumed value. End the deliverable with: "Confirm or adjust any row in the Assumptions table and I will re-run the affected stages."
本工具提供三种需求收集模式。在提问前，选择与用户需求匹配的模式。
模式A — 完整需求模式：用户已主动提供以下全部8项信息（粘贴的需求文档、过往计划、详细说明）。直接跳过访谈，用一句话确认理解后进入阶段2。
模式B — 访谈模式：用户明确要求梳理需求（如「帮我理清这个活动该怎么做」「带我一步步来」「采访我」）。通过
AskUserQuestion
分批提问以下8个问题，每批不超过4个。请勿自行编造答案，请勿合并问题。
模式C — 默认模式（适用于简短需求）：用户提供的需求简短（≤2句话）且未要求访谈。这是常见情况。请勿进行完整的8个问题访谈——这会把12字的提示变成审问。取而代之：
  1. 必收集字段（一次性批量提问）：有4个字段至关重要，不能默认假设，否则会生成通用化方案。发送一次
    AskUserQuestion
    请求，包含最多4个问题，覆盖：
    • 目标成果：活动要推动的具体行动是什么（注册、购票、投票、捐款、出席、预购、合格演示）？
    • 目标受众：目标群体是谁？谁正面临相关问题？包括地域、层级、社区成员身份。「所有对AI感兴趣的人」不是明确受众；「伦敦地区A-C轮初创公司的资深AI/ML工程师」才是。
    • 行业领域：从
      references/sector-riders.md
      的6个选项中选择（
      cohort-education
      、
      b2b-saas
      、
      ngo
      、
      consumer-brand
      、
      political-civic
      、
      personal-brand
      ），或选择
      other
      并附上一句话说明。行业领域会显著影响阶段4的渠道权重和阶段5的默认活动模式。
    • 预算：每月实际可投入的预算（€0 / <€1k / €1k–10k / €10k+），以及竞争对手的大致预算（未知 / 相近 / 是我们的5倍 / 是我们的50倍以上）？预算会显著影响阶段3的差距分类和阶段4的付费渠道可用性。切勿默认跳过该字段。
    如果用户的需求中已明确包含上述某一字段，则从
    AskUserQuestion
    请求中删除该问题，仅询问缺失的部分。
  2. 带标记的默认字段：其余字段将默认设置，但会在最终交付成果（阶段5输出）顶部的假设表中列出。用户可在阅读计划后确认或调整：
    字段简短需求下的默认值
    竞争对手（详情）抽象描述——如「品类中的 cohort-based 课程」「中型SaaS竞争对手」等。使用
    references/asymmetry-audit-table.md
    中的启发式问题定性分类预算差距。切勿编造具体竞争对手名称。
    现有渠道/用户基础「从零开始」，除非用户的需求、工作目录或CLAUDE.md明确表明已有 newsletter、社区或粉丝群体。
    瓶颈信任（2025-2026年几乎所有弱势活动的默认瓶颈）。
    时间窗口60天至某个特定锚点时刻（活动、发布、选举），之后转为周期性节奏。
    可用时间每周6小时。
  3. 升级规则：如果缺失的字段会显著影响阶段3的差距分类或阶段4的核心功能选择，则不能默认设置——需将其添加到
    AskUserQuestion
    请求中。例如：如果用户提到「我们整个团队都在发帖」但未说明渠道，则需询问，因为这会改变渠道矩阵。
  4. 模式C下必须包含假设表：最终交付成果开头需列出所有默认字段及其假设值。在成果末尾添加：「确认或调整假设表中的任何一行，我将重新运行受影响的阶段。」

The 8 Fields

8个核心字段

Regardless of mode, the campaign plan is grounded in these 8 fields:
  1. Sector and outcome — which of the 6 sector riders applies, and the specific action the campaign drives. (Sector is ask-once in Mode C; outcome is ask-once in Mode C.)
  2. Audience — who is the target, with enough specificity to picture them. (Ask-once in Mode C.)
  3. Competition / incumbent — name 3–5 specific competitors, or say "unknown" / "I'll describe them abstractly." If unknown, stay at category level and use 
    references/asymmetry-audit-table.md
    heuristics. Never invent names. (Defaults in Mode C; user can sharpen in the Assumptions confirmation.)
  4. Budget — user's and competitor's, in numbers or rough ratios. (Ask-once in Mode C.)
  5. Existing channels and traction — where does the user already reach the audience (newsletter size, community size, follower counts that matter, warm email list, prior press). (Defaults in Mode C.)
  6. Bottleneck — reach / trust / conversion / turnout / retention — pick one. (Defaults to trust in Mode C.)
  7. Time window — evergreen / 30 / 60 / 90 days / tied to a dated event or launch. (Defaults to 60 days in Mode C.)
  8. Capacity — realistic hours per week. Hard-constrains Stage 5's first-30-days action list; lowest-ROI actions get cut until total weekly effort fits. (Defaults to 6h/week in Mode C.)
无论采用哪种模式，活动计划都基于以下8个字段：
  1. 行业领域与目标成果：适用6个行业选项中的哪一个，以及活动要推动的具体行动。（模式C下需询问行业领域和目标成果）
  2. 目标受众：明确的目标群体，需具体到可具象描述。（模式C下需询问）
  3. 竞争对手/老牌企业：列出3-5个具体竞争对手，或说明「未知」/「我将抽象描述他们」。如果未知，保持品类层面描述，并使用
    references/asymmetry-audit-table.md
    中的启发式方法。切勿编造名称。（模式C下默认设置；用户可在假设确认环节细化）
  4. 预算：用户和竞争对手的预算，可用具体数字或大致比例表示。（模式C下需询问）
  5. 现有渠道与用户基础：用户当前可通过哪些渠道触达受众（newsletter规模、社区规模、有效粉丝数、精准邮件列表、过往媒体报道）。（模式C下默认设置）
  6. 瓶颈：触达量 / 信任 / 转化 / 参与度 / 留存——选择其一。（模式C下默认信任）
  7. 时间窗口：长期持续 / 30天 / 60天 / 90天 / 与特定事件或发布绑定。（模式C下默认60天）
  8. 可用时间：每周实际可投入的时间。这会严格限制阶段5的前30天行动清单；会砍掉ROI最低的行动，直到总每周工作量符合上限。（模式C下默认每周6小时）

Stage 2 — Ideation (generate 5+ campaign concepts across archetypes)

阶段2 — 创意构思（生成5+不同模式的活动概念）

Before any audit or channel work, generate at least five distinct campaign concepts, drawn from different archetypes in 
references/campaign-archetypes.md
. Do not converge early. The point is to give the user a shaped menu to choose from.
For each concept, produce:
  • Name — short, memorable, in the user's voice.
  • One-line thesis — why this campaign works for this user against this competitor right now.
  • Archetype — which archetype it draws from (e.g., founder-story arc, counter-narrative, earned-media stunt, referral flywheel, community-build, coalition play).
  • Primary channel tier — which tier from 
    references/channel-tier-stack.md
    this concept leans on (Tier 1/2/3/4).
  • Authenticity hook — the specific real-world detail, person, story, or action that makes it credible and hard to fake.
  • Minimum viable version — the smallest possible execution that proves the concept works in two weeks or less.
After presenting the five concepts, ask the user to pick one (or more) to push through Stage 3–5.
在进行任何评估或渠道工作前，生成至少5个不同的活动概念，灵感来自
references/campaign-archetypes.md
中的不同模式。切勿过早收敛方向，目的是为用户提供结构化的选择菜单。
每个概念需包含：
  • 名称：简短易记，符合用户的语气风格。
  • 一句话核心论点：为什么这个活动对当前的用户、针对当前的竞争对手有效。
  • 模式类型：源自哪种模式（如创始人故事线、反叙事、 earned-media stunt、推荐飞轮、社区建设、联盟合作）。
  • 核心渠道层级：该概念主要依赖
    references/channel-tier-stack.md
    中的哪个层级（Tier 1/2/3/4）。
  • 真实性钩子：让活动可信且难以模仿的具体现实细节、人物、故事或行动。
  • 最小可行版本：能在两周内验证概念有效性的最小执行方案。
展示5个概念后，让用户选择一个（或多个）进入阶段3-5。

Stage 3 — Asymmetry Audit

阶段3 — 预算差距评估

Classify the user's spend asymmetry using the table in 
references/asymmetry-audit-table.md
.
  • If the user gave numbers: compute the ratio (competitor spend ÷ user spend) and map it to mild (1:2–1:5), severe (1:5–1:50), or categorical (1:50+).
  • If the user did not give numbers: ask the heuristic questions from the reference file (state-backing? can they afford billboards? do they dominate your category's search ads?) and classify qualitatively.
Report back one sentence: 
Your asymmetry is <level>. This means <what it means for your strategy>.
Do not hedge. Do not offer a "balanced" recommendation if the user is at categorical — it would be misleading.
Then run a Preconditions Check. The organic-first playbook wins when preconditions are present; asymmetry alone is not enough. Score the user's situation against the six factors that made the Hungarian case work (see 
references/hungarian-case-study.md
for the full mechanism). Ask or infer:
  1. Credible insider / founder-story / defector equivalent. Is there a real person whose authenticity the competitor cannot manufacture?
  2. Accumulated grievance or unmet demand. Is there anger the incumbent has ignored long enough that it only needs a vehicle?
  3. Consolidated challenger field. Is the user the one clear alternative, or one of many? Fragmented fields dilute organic narrative.
  4. Felt pain, not abstract pain. Does every target experience the cost directly (price, time, trust, service failure), or is the grievance distributed?
  5. Threshold-rewarding market / platform / system. Does the distribution system reward consolidation once a share crosses some threshold (network effects, category leadership, algorithm-bound attention, electoral math)?
  6. Incumbent overplaying a fear / saturation hand. Is the competitor running past the curve — more ads, more fear, more polished content — in a way the user can counter-position against?
Score 0–6. Tell the user the count plainly and what it implies:
  • 5–6 preconditions: run the organic-first playbook at full scale. Proceed to Stage 4.
  • 3–4 preconditions: proceed, but flag the missing ones as campaign sub-goals — the user will need to build them during the campaign (e.g., find a credible voice, surface the grievance) for organic to compound.
  • 0–2 preconditions: refuse to execute the playbook at full scale. Building the preconditions is the campaign. Recruit the credible voice, consolidate the coalition, surface and name the grievance, find the felt-pain story. Until those are present, the organic-first playbook will underperform and burn the volunteer/community energy it depends on. Say this out loud. Do not soften it.
使用
references/asymmetry-audit-table.md
中的表格对用户的预算差距进行分类。
  • 如果用户提供了数字：计算比例（竞争对手预算 ÷ 用户预算），并归类为轻度（1:2–1:5）、重度（1:5–1:50）或极端（1:50+）。
  • 如果用户未提供数字：询问参考文件中的启发式问题（是否有官方支持？他们能否负担广告牌？是否主导品类搜索广告？），并进行定性分类。
用一句话反馈：
你的预算差距为<等级>。这意味着<对策略的影响>。
请勿含糊其辞。如果用户处于极端差距，请勿给出「平衡」建议，这会产生误导。
随后进行前置条件检查。优先自然流量的方案只有在满足前置条件时才会成功；仅靠预算差距是不够的。根据匈牙利案例成功的6个因素（详见
references/hungarian-case-study.md
的完整机制）对用户情况打分。询问或推断：
  1. 可信内部人士/创始人故事/叛逃者等价角色：是否存在一个真实人物，其真实性是竞争对手无法复制的？
  2. 积累的不满或未满足需求：是否存在被老牌企业长期忽视的愤怒情绪，只需一个触发点即可释放？
  3. 挑战者阵营整合：用户是明确的替代选择，还是众多选项之一？分散的阵营会稀释自然流量叙事效果。
  4. 切身痛点，而非抽象痛点：每个目标受众是否直接感受到成本（价格、时间、信任、服务失败），还是不满情绪分散？
  5. 达到阈值即获奖励的市场/平台/系统：当份额超过某个阈值时，分发系统是否会奖励整合（网络效应、品类领导地位、算法驱动的曝光、选举规则）？
  6. 老牌企业过度依赖恐惧/饱和策略：竞争对手是否过度投放广告、渲染恐惧、制作过于精致的内容，让用户可以反其道而行之？
评分0-6。明确告知用户得分及含义：
  • 5-6个前置条件满足：全面推行优先自然流量方案。进入阶段4。
  • 3-4个前置条件满足：继续推进，但需将缺失的条件列为活动子目标——用户需在活动期间构建这些条件（如找到可信发声者、挖掘不满情绪），以便自然流量效果持续放大。
  • 0-2个前置条件满足：拒绝全面推行该方案。构建前置条件就是当前的核心活动。招募可信发声者、整合联盟、挖掘并明确不满情绪、找到切身痛点案例。在这些条件满足前，优先自然流量的方案效果不佳，还会消耗依赖的志愿者/社区精力。明确告知用户，切勿软化措辞。

Stage 3a — Message-Market-Fit Gate

阶段3a — 消息-市场匹配度（MMF）门槛

Before assembling a channel stack, verify the campaign is solving a distribution problem, not an MMF problem. Distribution amplifies signal; it cannot manufacture it. A founder's great LinkedIn post cannot sell a product nobody wants, and a movement's best volunteer network cannot turn out voters for a message that does not name their pain.
Ask the user three yes/no questions. Do not skip any. If the user does not know the answer to one, treat that as a "no" — absence of evidence is evidence of absence for MMF.
  1. Revenue/commitment signal: Have ≥10 people in the target audience paid, signed up, pre-registered, or directly asked (without your prompting) for what you are offering? For events: ≥10 past attendees or paid waitlist. For products: ≥10 customers or pre-orders. For movements: ≥10 signed volunteers/members.
  2. Language signal: Can you name a specific pain the audience articulates in their own words before you pitch them? Not a pain you infer — a sentence someone in the audience has actually said, written, or posted about.
  3. Close signal: If you asked 5 people in the target audience to commit today (at the intended price / format / ask level), would at least 3 say yes?
Scoring:
  • 3/3 — MMF confirmed. The campaign is a distribution problem. Proceed to Stage 4.
  • 2/3 — Borderline. Name the weak link and insert a 1–2 week validation cycle into the plan as a pre-campaign task before running the full Stage 4–5 playbook. Examples: if question 2 fails, do 5 customer discovery conversations and extract the language; if question 1 fails, run a paid waitlist or pre-order test. Revisit the MMF gate after the validation cycle.
  • 0–1/3 — Refuse the full campaign plan. MMF is the bottleneck, not distribution. Route the user to a discovery cycle: 5 structured customer conversations, a pre-order or paid-waitlist test, a small-room live demo. Explain plainly: "The organic-first playbook scales trust. It cannot manufacture demand for a product, event, or cause people do not already want. Running a full campaign now will burn the volunteer/community energy that Stage 5 depends on. Come back when at least 2/3 of these signals are present." Do not soften this. Do not produce the full Stage 4–5 deliverable.
Report the MMF verdict at the top of the Stage 3 section of the final output so the user sees it before the channel stack.
在搭建渠道矩阵前，需验证活动解决的是分发问题，而非MMF问题。分发是放大信号，无法制造信号。创始人的优质LinkedIn帖子无法推销无人问津的产品，运动的最佳志愿者网络也无法为未说出用户痛点的内容吸引参与者。
向用户提出三个是/否问题，请勿跳过任何一个。如果用户不知道某个问题的答案，视为「否」——对于MMF而言，没有证据就是无效的。
  1. 收入/承诺信号：是否有≥10位目标受众付费、注册、预登记，或主动（无需你引导）询问你提供的内容？对于活动：≥10位过往参与者或付费候补名单。对于产品：≥10位客户或预订单。对于运动：≥10位签署的志愿者/成员。
  2. 语言信号：你能否说出目标受众用自己的语言表达的具体痛点？不是你推断的痛点，而是受众实际说过、写过或发布过的句子。
  3. 转化信号：如果你邀请5位目标受众立即承诺（按预期价格/形式/要求），是否至少有3位同意？
评分：
  • 3/3 — MMF确认：活动是分发问题。进入阶段4。
  • 2/3 — 临界状态：指出薄弱环节，并在计划中插入1-2周的验证周期作为前置活动任务，在执行完整的阶段4-5方案之前。例如：如果问题2未通过，进行5次客户发现对话，提取用户语言；如果问题1未通过，运行付费候补名单或预订单测试。验证周期后重新评估MMF门槛。
  • 0-1/3 — 拒绝完整活动计划：MMF是瓶颈，而非分发问题。引导用户进入发现周期：5次结构化客户对话、预订单或付费候补名单测试、小型现场演示。明确解释：「优先自然流量的方案是放大信任，无法为用户根本不想要的产品、活动或事业制造需求。现在开展完整活动会消耗阶段5依赖的志愿者/社区精力。当至少满足2/3的信号时再回来。」 切勿软化措辞，勿生成完整的阶段4-5交付成果。
在最终输出的阶段3部分顶部报告MMF结论，让用户在查看渠道矩阵前看到。

Stage 4 — Channel Tier Stack + 70/30 Allocation

阶段4 — 渠道层级矩阵 + 70/30分配

Function before cost. Before picking channels, pick the campaign's primary function against the user's bottleneck (from Stage 1 Q6). Use the function table at the top of 
references/channel-tier-stack.md
:
  • Demand capture — bottleneck is "people already want this, they can't find us." Primary function for small or unknown challengers with addressable existing intent. Leads with non-brand Google Search, SEO, directory presence. Never brand-keyword bidding without a lift test (see Stage 5).
  • Paid amplification — bottleneck is "our organic content works but reaches too few people." Primary function only after organic winners exist (24–48h traction gate). Leads with retargeting, warm lookalikes, Spark Ads on proven TikTok content.
  • Trust compounding — bottleneck is "people find us, sometimes click, but don't convert, refer, or come back." Primary function for the majority of underdog campaigns. Leads with Tier 1: founder content, community nodes, newsletters, volunteer networks.
A mild-asymmetry user with a trust bottleneck should not be routed to paid amplification just because they can afford it. Route by function first; allocate within that function by cost/asymmetry second.
Apply the sector rider. After the function choice but before allocation, open 
references/sector-riders.md
and apply the rider matching the user's sector (captured in Stage 1). The rider adjusts:
  • Archetype defaults — which campaign archetypes fit this sector best (e.g., cohort-education biases toward community-build + referral flywheel; B2B SaaS biases toward founder-LinkedIn + demand capture).
  • Channel weighting — which Tier 1/2 channels compound fastest in this sector (e.g., consumer brands lean on UGC flywheels; political campaigns lean on ground game and counter-media; NGOs lean on volunteer networks + earned media on named-beneficiary stories).
  • Failure-mode warning — the sector-specific way the organic-first playbook underperforms when misapplied, which becomes a standing warning in Stage 5's anti-vanity dashboard.
Do not overwrite the function-first choice. The rider layers on top. If the rider and the function choice conflict (e.g., B2B SaaS rider biases toward founder-LinkedIn but the function choice is demand capture), surface the conflict and name both paths rather than collapsing to one.
If the user picked "other" for sector, flag the mismatch in the Assumptions table and proceed with the closest rider — naming which of the rider's structural assumptions do not apply.
Then assemble the channel stack using 
references/channel-tier-stack.md
. Allocation rules layer on top of the function choice and the sector rider:
  • Mild asymmetry → stack can include Tier 1, 2, 3, and selective Tier 4. Allocate ~70% effort to organic (Tier 1 + 2), 30% to paid amplification (Tier 3, with rare Tier 4).
  • Severe asymmetry → Tier 1, 2, and targeted Tier 3. Avoid broad Tier 4. 80/20 split toward organic is often safer.
  • Categorical asymmetry → Tier 1 and 2 only. Refuse to draft broad cold-paid Tier 4 creative — it will not work and it will burn runway. If the user insists, explain the diminishing-returns curve and the counter-positioning move (see 
    references/authenticity-playbook.md
    ) before reconsidering.
Output the stack as a prioritized list with: (a) the primary function chosen, (b) the channels mapped to that function, (c) an estimated weekly effort commitment per channel, (d) the 70/30 (or 80/20) split in plain numbers.
功能优先于成本。在选择渠道前，根据用户的瓶颈（阶段1问题6）确定活动的核心功能。使用
references/channel-tier-stack.md
顶部的功能表：
  • 需求捕获：瓶颈是「人们已经需要这个，但找不到我们」。适用于有可触达的现有意向的小型或不知名挑战者。以非品牌Google搜索、SEO、目录入驻为主。未经效果测试（见阶段5），切勿投放品牌关键词竞价广告。
  • 付费放大：瓶颈是「我们的自然流量内容有效，但触达人数太少」。仅在自然流量内容验证成功后（24-48小时 traction门槛）作为核心功能。以重定向、精准相似受众、TikTok已验证内容的Spark Ads为主。
  • 信任积累：瓶颈是「人们能找到我们，有时会点击，但不转化、推荐或回访」。适用于大多数弱势活动。以Tier 1渠道为主：创始人内容、社区节点、newsletter、志愿者网络。
即使轻度预算差距且信任瓶颈的用户能负担付费投放，也不应直接导向付费放大功能。先按功能分类；再根据成本/差距在功能内分配资源。
应用行业领域适配规则：确定功能后，在分配资源前，打开
references/sector-riders.md
并应用与用户行业领域匹配的规则（阶段1收集）。该规则会调整：
  • 默认活动模式：哪些活动模式最适合该行业（如 cohort-education倾向于社区建设+推荐飞轮；B2B SaaS倾向于创始人LinkedIn内容+需求捕获）。
  • 渠道权重：哪些Tier 1/2渠道在该行业增长最快（如消费品牌依赖UGC飞轮；政治活动依赖线下行动和反媒体；NGO依赖志愿者网络+基于受益人名的 earned media）。
  • 失败模式警告：优先自然流量方案误用后在该行业的具体失效方式，这会成为阶段5反虚荣指标仪表盘的固定警告。
请勿覆盖功能优先的选择。该规则是叠加在功能选择之上。如果规则与功能选择冲突（如B2B SaaS规则倾向于创始人LinkedIn内容，但功能选择是需求捕获），需指出冲突并列出两种路径，而非合并为一种。
如果用户选择「other」作为行业领域，在假设表中标记不匹配，并使用最接近的规则——同时说明该规则的哪些结构假设不适用。
然后使用
references/channel-tier-stack.md
搭建渠道矩阵。分配规则基于功能选择和行业领域适配规则：
  • 轻度差距：矩阵可包含Tier 1、2、3及选择性Tier 4。约70%精力投入自然流量（Tier 1 + 2），30%投入付费放大（Tier 3，极少使用Tier 4）。
  • 重度差距：Tier 1、2及定向Tier 3。避免广泛使用Tier 4。通常80/20分配给自然流量更安全。
  • 极端差距：仅使用Tier 1和2。拒绝制定广泛的冷启动付费Tier 4创意——这不会奏效，还会消耗资金。如果用户坚持，先解释收益递减曲线和反定位策略（见
    references/authenticity-playbook.md
    ），再重新考虑。
将矩阵输出为优先级列表，包含：(a) 选定的核心功能，(b) 与该功能匹配的渠道，(c) 每个渠道的每周预估投入时间，(d) 明确的70/30（或80/20）分配数字。

Stage 5 — Alternative Shapes, Ad Copy, Boost Rules, Measurement

阶段5 — 备选方案、广告文案、推广规则、衡量指标

Given the selected concept + channel stack, produce:
  1. Competitor saturation map. Before shapes, before ad copy, before anything: for each of the top 2 named competitors (or top 2 competitor categories if the user did not name specific ones — see Principles), produce:
    (a) What they saturate — the channels, visual style, message tropes, production value, and emotional register the competitor is flooding. Be specific: "paid-heavy LinkedIn carousels with stock illustrations and growth-hack CTAs," not "social media ads."
    (b) The absence that becomes your signal. What is the competitor doing that your refusal to do becomes the positioning? Worked examples:
    • "Fidesz saturated billboards → Tisza's absence from billboards was the message."
    • "Cohort bootcamps saturate paid LinkedIn funnels + affiliate links → our refusal to advertise and our free open curriculum is the message."
    • "SaaS competitors saturate agency-produced demo videos → our terminal-only raw-footage weekly changelog is the message."
    (c) One-sentence positioning line the user commits to holding across the campaign. This is the single sentence every piece of content must reinforce.
  2. Three alternative campaign shapes for executing the concept, with tradeoffs. Examples of shapes: community-first (start with 100 real people, grow through word of mouth), earned-media-first (one newsworthy action drives press + organic amplification), search-capture-first (dominate long-tail high-intent queries where demand already exists). Use the 
    alternative-generator
    pattern — do not collapse to one recommendation prematurely; let the user choose. Each shape must include at least one flagship piece of content structured as Self / Us / Now (Marshall Ganz's organizing framework — see 
    references/authenticity-playbook.md
    ): the leader's lived experience, the shared community reality, and the specific time-bound ask. If the user cannot tell their Self story, drop the founder-led shape and route to community-first, earned-media-first, or search-capture-first instead.
  3. First-30-days action list — concrete weekly actions for weeks 1–4, mapped to the chosen shape. Each action has an owner (if multiple people), an effort estimate, and a clear success signal.
    Capacity is a hard constraint. After drafting the week-by-week list, sum total weekly effort. If it exceeds the user's stated capacity (Stage 1 Q8, default 6h/week), cut the lowest-ROI actions until total effort fits inside the ceiling. Name the cuts explicitly: "I am cutting X and Y because the draft came to 14h/week and you said 6h/week. These are the actions to re-add if you can carve out more time later." Do not ship a plan the user cannot execute.
    Earned-media actions must be specific or flagged. Every earned-media action in the list must include:
    • (a) A named target (e.g., "Latent Space podcast, The Pragmatic Engineer newsletter"), or an explicit "target TBD — research is the week-1 action" flag. Never pitch "5 podcasts in the niche" without naming them; that is not an action, that is a wish.
    • (b) A one-sentence pitch hook matched to the target's recent content — not a generic bio blast.
    • (c) Success criteria — reply, mention, guest spot, cross-post, podcast booking, or newsletter feature.
    • (d) Outreach day and channel — Tuesday morning via email, Thursday via LinkedIn DM, etc.
    If the skill does not know specific targets in the user's niche (because the user did not name them and the skill cannot invent names — see Principles), assign target research as the week-1 action and set success criteria for the research itself (e.g., "produce a ranked list of 15 targets with RSS + contact channel by Friday").
    Community-build is a multi-week sub-campaign, not a line item. If a Slack / Discord / WhatsApp / Circle community node is in the channel stack, it gets its own block in the first-30-days list, not one line at 1h/week:
    • Week 0 (before public announcement): pick the platform, write the rules, seed with 10 personal invites from the user's existing network. Dead rooms are worse than no room.
    • Weeks 1–2: founder posts daily for 14 consecutive days. Non-negotiable. Without the founder's daily presence, the community never reaches escape velocity.
    • Weeks 3–4: hand off three recurring rituals (weekly thread, AMA cadence, member spotlight) to 2–3 engaged early members. If no members step up, the community will die when the founder stops; surface this as a validation failure, not a staffing problem.
    • Month 2+: budget 3–4h/week sustained — moderation, weekly post, member welcomes, pruning dead accounts. Underinvest and the community dies.
  4. Ad copy + boost rules — only if paid has a role in the chosen stack:
    • Creative direction in the user's authentic voice (see 
      references/authenticity-playbook.md
      ).
    • The explicit 24–48h organic traction gate: do not boost a post until it has demonstrated genuine organic signal (saves, shares, sustained watch time, thread-depth comments — not raw likes). Likes are cheap and lie.
    • Audience definition: warm retargeting first, lookalikes second, cold audiences only for proven winners with a lift-test plan attached.
    • Frequency cap and creative refresh cadence to avoid fatigue (see ad fatigue section in 
      references/channel-tier-stack.md
      ).
    • Do not bid on your own brand-name keywords without a lift test. Blake, Nosko & Tadelis's eBay field experiment (2015) found weak or no incremental lift from brand- keyword bidding — the traffic arrives organically anyway. Platform-reported ROAS on brand keywords is always excellent because the traffic would have converted regardless. This is one of the most reliable ways established brands waste paid budget. If the user is already bidding on their own brand, require a geo-holdout test (Template 4 in 
      references/lift-test-templates.md
      ) before continued spend.
    • If asymmetry is categorical, refuse to produce broad cold-paid copy. Offer Tier 1/2 content instead and explain why.
  5. Lift-test / measurement plan — mandatory, no exceptions. One concrete experiment using the templates in 
    references/lift-test-templates.md
    . Template selection:
    • Budget exists: Template 1 (geo-holdout) or Template 2/3 (conversion-lift).
    • Brand-keyword bidding already in play: Template 4 (brand-keyword holdout).
    • Zero budget: Template 5 (organic-source attribution) — directional, UTM-tagged, 30-day window, per-channel conversion-rate ranking, cut-the-bottom-20%-reinvest- in-the-top decision rule. Specify:
    • The hypothesis (paid channel X drives incremental action Y on top of organic baseline — or, for Template 5, "channel X outperforms channel Y on conversion rate per unique visitor").
    • Control vs. test group definition (or channel-comparison definition for Template 5).
    • Holdout percentage, duration, and minimum sample size.
    • The incremental metric (not attributed; not platform-reported ROAS). For Template 5, per-channel conversion rate, with the explicit caveat that it is directional only.
    • The decision threshold: what lift level justifies continued spend, what level means stop. For Template 5: top channel → double effort; bottom <20% → drop.
  6. Anti-vanity metric dashboard — the short list of metrics the user should track and the longer list of metrics they should explicitly ignore. Examples:
    • Track: saves, shares, sustained watch time, signed-up volunteers/subscribers, incremental conversions from the lift test, word-of-mouth referrals.
    • Ignore: impressions, CPM, follower count, raw likes, platform-reported attributed ROAS, vanity engagement rate without segmentation.
基于选定的概念+渠道矩阵，生成：
  1. 竞争对手饱和地图：在制定方案、广告文案之前，先针对前2个指定竞争对手（如果用户未指定具体竞争对手，则针对前2个竞争品类——见原则）生成：
    (a) 他们的饱和点：竞争对手大量投放的渠道、视觉风格、消息套路、制作水准和情绪基调。需具体：「付费为主的LinkedIn轮播图，使用库存插图和增长黑客式CTA」，而非「社交媒体广告」。
    (b) 你的差异化信号：竞争对手在做什么，而你拒绝做这件事就成为你的定位？示例：
    • 「Fidesz 铺满了广告牌 → Tisza 不在广告牌上投放本身就是信号。」
    • 「 cohort训练营饱和了付费LinkedIn漏斗+联盟链接 → 我们拒绝投放广告并提供免费公开课程就是信号。」
    • 「SaaS竞争对手饱和了代理制作的演示视频 → 我们纯终端的原始素材每周更新日志就是信号。」
    (c) 一句定位语：用户在整个活动中需坚持的一句话。所有内容都必须强化这句话。
  2. 三种活动执行备选方案，各有取舍。方案示例：社区优先（从100位真实用户开始，通过口碑增长）、* earned-media优先*（一个有新闻价值的行动驱动媒体报道+自然流量放大）、搜索捕获优先（主导长尾高意向查询，这些查询已有现成需求）。使用
    alternative-generator
    模式——勿过早收敛为单一推荐，让用户选择。每个方案需至少包含一个采用Self / Us / Now（Marshall Ganz的组织框架——见
    references/authenticity-playbook.md
    ）结构的核心内容：领导者的亲身经历、社区的共同现状、具体的限时行动号召。如果用户无法讲述Self故事，则放弃创始人主导方案，转而引导社区优先、earned-media优先或搜索捕获优先方案。
  3. 前30天行动清单：与选定方案匹配的第1-4周具体每周行动。每个行动需包含负责人（如有多人）、投入时间预估和明确的成功信号。
    可用时间是硬约束：起草每周清单后，汇总总每周投入时间。如果超过用户 stated 的可用时间（阶段1问题8，默认每周6小时），则砍掉ROI最低的行动，直到总工作量符合上限。明确说明砍掉的内容：「我砍掉了X和Y，因为初稿每周需要14小时，而你说每周6小时。如果之后能腾出更多时间，可重新添加这些行动。」 切勿交付用户无法执行的计划。
    ** earned-media行动必须具体或标记**：清单中的每个earned-media行动必须包含：
    • (a) 指定目标（如「Latent Space播客、The Pragmatic Engineer newsletter」），或明确的「目标待定——第1周行动为调研」标记。切勿笼统地说「投放 niche 中的5个播客」而不指定名称；这不是行动，是愿望。
    • (b) 一句匹配目标近期内容的钩子——而非通用的自我介绍。
    • (c) 成功标准：回复、提及、嘉宾邀约、交叉发布、播客预订或newsletter报道。
    • (d) ** outreach日期和渠道**：周二上午邮件、周四LinkedIn私信等。
    如果工具不知道用户 niche 的具体目标（因为用户未指定，且工具不能编造名称——见原则），则将目标调研设为第1周行动，并为调研本身设定成功标准（如「周五前生成包含15个目标的排名列表，附带RSS和联系渠道」）。
    社区建设是多周子活动，而非单项任务：如果渠道矩阵包含Slack/Discord/WhatsApp/Circle社区节点，则在前30天清单中单独列出模块，而非每周1小时的单项任务：
    • 第0周（公开宣布前）：选择平台，撰写规则，从用户现有网络邀请10位核心用户。冷清的社区不如没有社区。
    • 第1-2周：创始人连续14天每日发帖。这是硬性要求。没有创始人的每日参与，社区永远无法达到增长临界点。
    • 第3-4周：将三个固定活动（每周主题帖、AMA节奏、成员 spotlight）交给2-3位活跃早期成员。如果没有成员主动接手，创始人停止参与后社区就会消亡；需将这视为验证失败，而非人员配置问题。
    • 第2个月及以后：每周持续投入3-4小时——审核、每周发帖、欢迎新成员、清理僵尸账号。投入不足会导致社区消亡。
  4. 广告文案+推广规则——仅在付费渠道纳入矩阵时生成：
    • 符合用户真实语气的创意方向（见
      references/authenticity-playbook.md
      ）。
    • 明确的24-48小时自然流量 traction门槛：帖子需展现真实自然流量信号（收藏、分享、持续观看时长、深度评论——而非原始点赞）后才能推广。点赞成本低且具有欺骗性。
    • 受众定义：优先重定向，其次是相似受众，仅为已验证的成功内容提供冷启动受众方案，并附带效果测试计划。
    • 频率上限和创意更新节奏，避免用户疲劳（见
      references/channel-tier-stack.md
      中的广告疲劳部分）。
    • 未经效果测试，请勿投放自有品牌关键词竞价广告。Blake, Nosko & Tadelis的eBay实地实验（2015）发现，品牌关键词竞价的增量提升微弱或无——流量本就会自然到来。平台报告的品牌关键词ROAS总是很高，因为无论如何流量都会转化。这是成熟品牌浪费付费预算的最常见方式之一。如果用户已在投放自有品牌关键词，需要求进行地理对照组测试（
      references/lift-test-templates.md
      中的模板4）后才能继续投入。
    • 如果是极端预算差距，拒绝生成广泛的冷启动付费文案。转而提供Tier 1/2内容方案并解释原因。
  5. 效果测试/衡量计划——强制要求，无例外。使用
    references/lift-test-templates.md
    中的模板设计一个具体实验。模板选择：
    • 有预算：模板1（地理对照组）或模板2/3（转化提升）。
    • 已在投放品牌关键词：模板4（品牌关键词对照组）。
    • 零预算：模板5（自然流量来源归因）——方向性，带UTM标记，30天窗口，按渠道转化率排名，遵循「砍掉后20%，重新投入前20%」的决策规则。 需明确：
    • 假设（付费渠道X在自然流量基线之上推动增量行动Y——或对于模板5，「渠道X的每独立访客转化率优于渠道Y」）。
    • 对照组 vs 测试组定义（或模板5的渠道对比定义）。
    • 对照组比例、时长和最小样本量。
    • 增量指标（非归因；非平台报告ROAS）。对于模板5，为渠道转化率，并明确说明这只是方向性指标。
    • 决策阈值：达到什么提升水平值得继续投入，什么水平需停止。对于模板5：顶级渠道→加倍投入；末尾<20%→砍掉。
  6. 反虚荣指标仪表盘：用户应跟踪的简短指标列表，以及应明确忽略的较长指标列表。示例：
    • 跟踪：收藏、分享、持续观看时长、注册志愿者/订阅者、效果测试的增量转化、口碑推荐。
    • 忽略：曝光量、CPM、粉丝数、原始点赞、平台报告的归因ROAS、未细分的虚荣互动率。

Output Template

输出模板

Produce the final deliverable in this exact order so the user can scan it and act:
undefined
按以下 exact 顺序生成最终交付成果，方便用户快速浏览并采取行动：
undefined

Organic-First Campaign Plan — <user / project name>

优先自然流量的活动计划 — <用户/项目名称>

0. Assumptions (required under Mode C — default mode; omit under Mode A/B)

0. 假设 （模式C——默认模式下必填；模式A/B下省略）

<table: field → assumed value, flagging every default applied from Stage 1 so the user can confirm or adjust inline at the end>
<table: 字段 → 假设值，标记阶段1中应用的所有默认设置，方便用户在末尾确认或调整>

1. Campaign Ideas (5+ concepts across archetypes)

1. 活动创意（5+不同模式的概念）

<concepts with thesis, archetype, primary tier, authenticity hook, MVP>
<包含核心论点、模式类型、核心层级、真实性钩子、最小可行版本的概念>

2. Selected Concept

2. 选定概念

<the one (or more) the user picked>
<用户选择的一个（或多个）概念>

3. Spend Asymmetry Verdict

3. 预算差距结论

<mild / severe / categorical, one sentence explaining what it means>
<轻度/重度/极端，一句话解释含义>

3a. Message-Market-Fit Gate

3a. 消息-市场匹配度（MMF）门槛

<3-question score, verdict (confirmed / borderline / failed), and — if borderline or failed — the validation cycle the user must run before proceeding>
<3个问题的得分、结论（确认/临界/失败），以及——如果临界或失败——用户在继续前必须完成的验证周期>

4. Channel Tier Stack

4. 渠道层级矩阵

<prioritized channel list with weekly effort>
<带每周投入时间的优先级渠道列表>

5. 70/30 (or 80/20) Allocation

5. 70/30（或80/20）分配

<organic % / paid %, with rationale>
<自然流量% / 付费%，附理由>

6. Competitor Saturation Map

6. 竞争对手饱和地图

<per competitor: what they saturate, the absence that becomes your signal, one-sentence positioning line>
<每个竞争对手：他们的饱和点、你的差异化信号、一句定位语>

7. Three Alternative Campaign Shapes

7. 三种活动执行备选方案

<three shapes with tradeoffs>
<三种带取舍的方案>

8. First-30-Days Action List

8. 前30天行动清单

<week 1–4 concrete actions, scaled to stated capacity with cuts named>
<第1-4周的具体行动，根据 stated 可用时间调整，明确说明砍掉的内容>

9. Ad Copy + Boost Rules (if paid applies)

9. 广告文案+推广规则 （如适用付费渠道）

<creative direction + 24–48h gate + frequency cap + refusal note if categorical>
<创意方向 + 24-48小时门槛 + 频率上限 + 极端差距下的拒绝说明>

10. Lift-Test / Measurement Plan

10. 效果测试/衡量计划

<one concrete experiment with threshold>
<一个带阈值的具体实验>

11. Anti-Vanity Metric Dashboard

11. 反虚荣指标仪表盘

<track list / ignore list> ```
<跟踪列表 / 忽略列表>
undefined

Principles to Hold Throughout

全程需遵循的原则

  • Do not sell reach as persuasion. Reach above the first 5–6 impressions does not persuade; it annoys. Say this out loud when recommending frequency caps.
  • Do not propose broad cold-paid as a primary channel for severe or categorical asymmetry. It will not work. Refuse and explain the alternative.
  • Do not generate content that impersonates authenticity the user does not have. If there is no real founder, no real volunteer network, no real earned-media hook, say so and propose how to build one — do not fake it with AI-generated "real-looking" content.
  • Do not accept platform-reported ROAS as proof. Insist on an incremental lift test. Platforms are graded on attributed conversions; the user is graded on actual lift. Academic field experiments (Lewis & Rao 2015, QJE) show digital ad ROI confidence intervals are so wide most campaigns cannot be distinguished from zero. Meta and Google ship Conversion Lift / Brand Lift precisely because they admit this. Cite the work when a user pushes back.
  • Always produce alternatives, not a single recommendation. The user has information you do not; give them a shaped menu and let them choose.
  • Explain the why. When refusing a paid push or a channel, explain the diminishing-returns curve, the counter-positioning move, or the fatigue dynamic. A user who understands the mechanism will hold the discipline after the skill run ends.
  • Do not invent specifics the user did not give. No made-up competitor names, no fabricated budgets, no invented past-campaign references, no hallucinated podcasts or newsletters in the user's niche. If the user did not name them, stay abstract ("cohort- based courses in the category," "mid-size SaaS competitors with paid-growth teams") and say what you are doing: "I am describing competitors at the category level because you did not name specific ones — name them if you want sharper positioning."
  • Vague earned-media targets produce vague results. Force specificity (named target, matched hook, success criteria, outreach day) or flag research as a week-1 action. "Pitch 5 podcasts" is not a plan.
  • A plan the user cannot execute is not a plan. Respect stated weekly capacity; name the cuts required to fit inside it. A 6h/week plan that succeeds beats a 14h/week plan that collapses in week 3.
  • If MMF is failing, the campaign is the wrong problem to solve. Say so. Distribution amplifies signal; it cannot manufacture it. If the MMF gate (Stage 3a) returns 0–1 / 3, refuse the full campaign plan and route the user to a discovery / validation cycle. Running a full organic-first campaign against a broken offer burns the volunteer, community, and founder-attention capital the playbook depends on.
  • Do not over-generalize the Hungarian case. Organic beats paid saturation when preconditions are present: credible insider, accumulated grievance, consolidated challenger, felt pain, threshold-rewarding system, overplayed incumbent. Absent most of these, the playbook alone will not win — name the missing preconditions and recommend building them first.
  • Propaganda and paid advertising sit on the same curve. Troll farms, state disinformation, and commercial ad buys all operate on one diminishing-returns curve and all face the same authenticity collapse at saturation. You can buy reach; you cannot buy belief; above a threshold, buying more reach makes belief harder. The troll farms have not gone away — they have learned this lesson too and will adapt (smaller networks, embedded authenticity, parasocial mimicry). Design for the adapted adversary, not the 2020-era one: lean on verifiable authenticity (real people, real places, real time), narrative coherence, and provenance signals the adversary cannot manufacture without being caught.
  • 勿将曝光等同于说服：超过5-6次曝光后，曝光不会说服用户，只会惹恼用户。在推荐频率上限时明确说明这一点。
  • 勿为重度或极端预算差距的用户将广泛冷启动付费作为核心渠道：这不会奏效。拒绝并解释替代方案。
  • 勿生成模仿用户不具备的真实性的内容：如果没有真实的创始人、真实的志愿者网络、真实的 earned-media 钩子，需明确说明并提出构建方案——切勿用AI生成「看起来真实」的内容来伪造。
  • 勿接受平台报告的ROAS作为证据：坚持进行增量效果测试。平台的考核指标是归因转化；用户的考核指标是实际增量提升。学术实地实验（Lewis & Rao 2015, QJE）显示，数字广告ROI的置信区间极宽，大多数活动的效果在统计上与零无显著差异。Meta和Google推出Conversion Lift/Brand Lift工具正是因为他们承认这一点。当用户质疑时，可引用相关研究。
  • 始终提供备选方案，而非单一推荐：用户掌握你不知道的信息；提供结构化菜单让用户选择。
  • 解释原因：当拒绝付费投放或某个渠道时，解释收益递减曲线、反定位策略或疲劳机制。理解背后逻辑的用户会在工具运行结束后仍保持执行纪律。
  • 勿编造用户未提供的细节：不要编造竞争对手名称、虚假预算、虚构过往活动参考、编造用户 niche 中的播客或newsletter。如果用户未指定，保持抽象描述（如「品类中的 cohort-based 课程」「有付费增长团队的中型SaaS竞争对手」）并说明：「由于你未指定具体竞争对手，我按品类层面描述——如果需要更精准的定位，请提供具体名称。」
  • 模糊的 earned-media 目标只会产生模糊的结果：强制要求具体（指定目标、匹配钩子、成功标准、 outreach 日期），或标记调研为第1周行动。「投放5个播客」不是计划。
  • 用户无法执行的计划不是计划：尊重 stated 的每周可用时间；明确说明为符合上限而砍掉的内容。每周6小时且能成功的计划，胜过每周14小时但第3周就崩溃的计划。
  • 如果MMF不达标，活动就是错误的问题解决方案。明确说明这一点：分发是放大信号，无法制造信号。如果阶段3a的MMF门槛得分0-1/3，拒绝完整活动计划并引导用户进入发现/验证周期。针对有缺陷的产品开展完整的优先自然流量活动，会消耗方案依赖的志愿者、社区和创始人精力。
  • 勿过度推广匈牙利案例：自然流量击败付费饱和仅在满足前置条件时成立：可信内部人士、积累的不满、挑战者阵营整合、切身痛点、达到阈值即获奖励的系统、老牌企业过度策略。如果大多数条件不满足，仅靠方案本身无法取胜——指出缺失的前置条件并建议先构建这些条件。
  • 宣传与付费广告遵循相同的收益曲线：水军、官方虚假信息和商业广告都遵循同一条收益递减曲线，在饱和点都会面临真实性崩塌。你可以购买曝光，但无法购买信任；超过某个阈值，购买更多曝光会让信任更难建立。水军并未消失——他们也吸取了教训并会调整策略（更小的网络、嵌入式真实性、拟社会模仿）。针对已调整的对手设计方案：依赖可验证的真实性（真实人物、真实场景、真实时间）、叙事一致性和对手无法伪造而不被发现的来源信号。

References (read when relevant)

参考资料（相关时阅读）

  • references/campaign-archetypes.md
    — 15+ archetypes the ideation engine draws from.
  • references/asymmetry-audit-table.md
    — decision table for classifying spend asymmetry.
  • references/channel-tier-stack.md
    — Tier 1–4 channels with 2025–2026 benchmark data.
  • references/authenticity-playbook.md
    — founder voice, kitchen-table framing, counter-positioning, narrative coherence.
  • references/lift-test-templates.md
    — geo-holdout and conversion-lift experiment templates.
  • references/sector-riders.md
    — six sector-specific overlays applied in Stage 4.
  • references/hungarian-case-study.md
    — Tisza vs. Fidesz 2026 worked example.
  • references/campaign-archetypes.md
    — 创意引擎参考的15+活动模式。
  • references/asymmetry-audit-table.md
    — 预算差距分类决策表。
  • references/channel-tier-stack.md
    — 包含2025-2026基准数据的Tier 1-4渠道。
  • references/authenticity-playbook.md
    — 创始人语气、生活化框架、反定位、叙事一致性。
  • references/lift-test-templates.md
    — 地理对照组和转化提升实验模板。
  • references/sector-riders.md
    — 阶段4应用的6个行业领域专属规则。
  • references/hungarian-case-study.md
    — 2026年Tisza vs Fidesz的成功案例。