competitive-enablement-refresh

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Competitive Enablement Refresh

竞争销售赋能更新

Mission

使命

Keep what the field says about competitors true, one change at a time.

Given a market change, a pattern of field questions, or a review cadence, find the enablement it touches, say exactly which sections are now stale, unsupported, or incomplete and why, draft the smallest edit that makes them true again, and say separately what has to happen for reps to actually see it.

确保一线团队关于竞品的表述准确无误，每次更新聚焦一处变动。

当出现市场变动、一线问题呈现规律性模式，或是到了定期复盘节点时，找出受影响的赋能内容，明确说明哪些章节现已过时、无依据或不完整并给出原因，起草能让内容恢复准确的最小修改方案，同时单独说明需要采取哪些措施才能让销售代表实际看到这些更新。

Use this skill when

适用场景

a competitor change has landed and someone asks what enablement it invalidates
reps keep asking a question the current assets do not answer
a PMM wants to refresh the competitive section of a deck, playbook, or training for this week or this quarter
someone asks what sales should learn from recent market movement
an existing talk track needs updating rather than rewriting from scratch
a request bundles the refresh with a broad audit or a new card - take the refresh, route the rest (Step 9)

竞争对手发生变动，有人询问哪些赋能内容因此失效
销售代表反复提出当前材料无法解答的问题
PMM需要更新本周或本季度演示文稿、销售手册或培训材料中的竞品相关章节
有人询问销售团队应该从近期市场变动中学习什么
现有talk track需要更新，而非从零重写
请求中同时包含更新需求和全面审计或新建战卡的需求——仅处理更新部分，其余需求转交对应流程（步骤9）

Do not use this skill when

不适用场景

the job is a broad inventory and staleness scan across every competitive asset, with no specific change or scope driving it. Use
```
competitive-asset-audit
```
.
one battlecard is the entire job and it is being written, not refreshed. Use
```
competitive-battlecard
```
.
a rep needs words for one objection now. Use
```
competitive-objection-response
```
.
the user wants to know what changed in the market this week, without an enablement artifact in scope. Use
```
competitive-market-briefing
```
.
the artifact under review is external messaging, not sales enablement. Use
```
competitive-messaging-audit
```
.

任务是对所有竞争相关资产进行全面盘点和过时扫描，且无特定变动或明确范围驱动。请使用
```
competitive-asset-audit
```
。
任务是从零撰写一份完整的battlecard，而非更新现有内容。请使用
```
competitive-battlecard
```
。
销售代表需要立即获得应对某条客户异议的话术。请使用
```
competitive-objection-response
```
。
用户想知道本周市场发生了哪些变动，且不涉及具体赋能材料的更新。请使用
```
competitive-market-briefing
```
。
待审核的材料是对外宣传内容，而非销售赋能材料。请使用
```
competitive-messaging-audit
```
。

Required outcome

预期产出

For the scope in front of the user, answer:

What changed - in the market, in the field, or in the home product - that drives this refresh?
Which enablement assets and sections does it touch?
For each touched section: current, stale, unsupported, or incomplete - and why, with the evidence?
Which changes matter most, by what it would cost a rep to say the old line?
What is the smallest update that makes each section true?
What proof backs each new line?
Where a new line reverses an old one, what does the rep need to know about the history?
What can stay as it is?
Is the real problem content, or that reps are not seeing the content that exists?

针对用户提出的范围，回答以下问题：

是什么变动——市场层面、一线层面，或是自有产品层面——触发了本次更新？
哪些赋能材料及章节受到了影响？
每个受影响章节的状态：有效、过时、无依据或不完整——并说明原因及佐证依据？
按照销售代表沿用旧表述可能带来的代价，哪些变动优先级最高？
能让每个章节恢复准确的最小更新内容是什么？
每条新表述的佐证依据是什么？
如果新表述与旧表述完全相反，销售代表需要了解哪些历史背景？
哪些内容可以保持不变？
真正的问题是内容本身有误，还是现有内容没有被销售代表看到？

Context acquisition

上下文获取

Read

references/CONTEXT.md

and

references/INTERNAL.md

阅读

references/CONTEXT.md

和

references/INTERNAL.md

。

Irreducible minimum

最低必要信息

home product
the enablement scope: which assets, or which change or question set defines them

Retrieve before asking. When LMTY is connected, the change that drives the refresh is usually in its change record. When an enablement repository is connected, find the assets that mention the competitor or claim rather than asking the user to list them.

If neither the scope nor a driving change can be established, ask one question - and offer the likely answer with it, so the user can confirm rather than compose: "I can start with the Northwind talk track and battlecard, since those are the assets the last month's rep questions touched - or name the change or assets you mean." Then stop.

自有产品
赋能范围：涉及哪些材料，或是由哪些变动/问题集界定范围

先主动检索，再提问。如果已连接LMTY，触发更新的变动通常记录在其变更日志中。如果已连接赋能材料仓库，直接查找提及相关竞品或主张的材料，而非要求用户列出。

如果既无法确定范围，也无法找到触发变动，仅提出一个问题——同时给出可能的答案，方便用户确认而非自行组织语言：「我可以先从Northwind的talk track和battlecard开始，因为上个月销售代表的问题都涉及这些材料——或者你可以说明具体的变动或材料范围。」然后停止等待回复。

Strongly preferred context

强烈建议获取的上下文

LMTY report and change record for the competitors in scope
the existing enablement: battlecards, talk tracks, decks, playbooks, training modules, with dates
recent calls and rep questions mentioning the competitors or claims in scope
asset usage or sales feedback, when available
approved claims, proof, references, and pricing

范围内竞品的LMTY报告和变更记录
现有赋能材料：battlecard、talk track、deck、销售手册、培训模块，及对应的更新日期
提及范围内竞品或相关主张的近期通话记录和销售代表问题
材料使用数据或销售反馈（如有）
已获批的主张、佐证依据、参考资料和定价信息

Source priority for this job

本任务的信息来源优先级

approved company proof for what any new line may claim
current LMTY state and change record for what is true of the competitor now
the existing assets, as the thing being verified
field questions from calls and channels for what the assets fail to answer
asset usage data for whether the problem is content or reach

公司已获批的佐证材料，用于支撑任何新表述
最新的LMTY状态和变更记录，用于确认竞品当前的真实情况
现有赋能材料，作为被验证的对象
来自通话和渠道的一线问题，用于识别材料无法解答的内容
材料使用数据，用于判断问题出在内容本身还是触达率

Workflow

工作流程

Step 1 - Inventory the enablement in scope

步骤1 - 盘点范围内的赋能材料

List each asset the scope covers: name, type, owner if known, last updated, and the sections that make competitive claims. Pull the claims out as short statements so they can be checked one at a time.

If the same claim appears in several assets, record it once with the list of where it lives.

列出范围内的每一份材料：名称、类型、负责人（如已知）、最后更新时间，以及包含竞品相关主张的章节。将这些主张提取为简短陈述，以便逐一核查。

如果同一主张出现在多份材料中，仅记录一次并附上所有出现位置的列表。

Step 2 - Identify the changes that could invalidate it

步骤2 - 识别可能导致主张失效的变动

From the LMTY change record and the home product's own changes over the relevant window: which changes touch a claim in the inventory? Name each change with its date and source, and the claims it bears on.

Include home-product changes. A new integration, a price change, or a certification on the home side invalidates enablement as surely as a competitor move.

从LMTY变更记录和相关周期内自有产品的变动中，找出哪些变动涉及盘点清单中的主张。列出每项变动的日期、来源，以及受影响的主张。

需包含自有产品的变动。自有产品的新集成、价格调整或资质认证变动，和竞争对手的行动一样，都会导致现有赋能内容失效。

Step 3 - Identify what the field is asking that the assets do not answer

步骤3 - 识别一线提出但材料无法解答的问题

From calls, channels, and rep questions: the recurring questions and objections about these competitors, with counts where possible. Match each against the inventory. A question with no answering section is an incompleteness; a question the section answers wrongly is worse.

从通话记录、沟通渠道和销售代表的问题中，梳理出关于这些竞品的高频问题和异议，尽可能统计出现次数。将每个问题与盘点清单进行匹配。没有对应章节解答的问题属于内容不完整；章节给出错误答案的问题问题更严重。

Step 4 - Classify each section

步骤4 - 对每个章节进行分类

For every section in the inventory:

current - the claim is supported by approved proof or current evidence, and the wording is right
stale - the claim was true and is now out of date: a price that moved, a tier that was removed, a date that passed
unsupported - the claim was never backed by approved proof or evidence; the change did not break it, it was always exposed
incomplete - the section is correct as far as it goes and does not answer what the field is now asked

Give the evidence for each classification. "Stale" without the change that staled it, or "unsupported" without saying what proof is missing, is an opinion.

对盘点清单中的每个章节：

有效 - 主张有已获批的佐证或最新证据支撑，且表述准确
过时 - 主张过去属实，但现在已失效：例如价格变动、套餐下线、日期过期
无依据 - 主张从未得到已获批的佐证或证据支撑；并非因变动失效，而是本身就缺乏依据
不完整 - 章节现有内容是准确的，但无法解答一线当前遇到的问题

每个分类都需给出佐证依据。没有说明具体变动的「过时」，或是没有说明缺少何种佐证的「无依据」，都只是主观判断。

Step 5 - Prioritize by field consequence

步骤5 - 按一线影响划分优先级

Order the changes by what happens if a rep says the old line to a buyer today: a wrong price quoted, a capability claimed the buyer will disprove in the demo, a certification asserted that security will deny. Edit volume is not priority. One wrong number in a talk track outranks ten cosmetic updates in a deck.

The order is your judgment. Say so - LMTY reports changes; it does not rank what matters to this team's enablement, and the artifact must not read as if it did.

按照销售代表如今对买家说出旧表述可能带来的后果排序：例如报错价格、声称的功能会在演示中被买家证伪、宣称的资质会被安全团队否决。修改量大小不代表优先级高低。talk track里的一个错误数字，优先级远高于deck里的十处格式调整。

排序是你的判断。需要明确说明这一点——LMTY只报告变动，不会对团队赋能的优先级进行排序，交付物不能让人误以为排序来自LMTY。

Step 6 - Draft the smallest useful update

步骤6 - 起草最小可用的更新内容

For each section that needs to change, write the replacement text: the new line, the proof it rests on, and the date. Change only what the evidence requires. Do not rewrite the asset around the update, and do not add claims the refresh was not asked for.

If sales has asked for a line the evidence cannot support, say so and give the supportable version. Do not soften the unsupported claim into a vaguer unsupported claim.

对每个需要修改的章节，撰写替换文本：包含新表述、支撑依据和日期。仅修改证据要求必须调整的内容。不要围绕更新重写整份材料，也不要添加本次更新未要求的主张。

如果销售团队要求添加的表述没有证据支撑，明确说明并给出有依据的版本。不要把无依据的主张软化成更模糊的无依据表述。

Step 7 - Preserve history where a claim reverses

步骤7 - 保留主张反转的历史记录

When a new line contradicts what the asset said before - "they now publish enterprise pricing" replacing "their enterprise pricing is sales-gated" - note the reversal, the date, and the source. Reps who learned the old line will otherwise reconcile the two by ignoring one.

当新表述与材料原有表述完全相反时——例如用「他们现在公布了企业版定价」替换「他们的企业版定价需联系销售获取」——需要标注反转内容、日期和来源。否则，学过旧表述的销售代表会通过忽略其中一种来调和矛盾。

Step 8 - Separate content from distribution

步骤8 - 区分内容问题与分发问题

Answer separately: is the field asking this because the asset is wrong, or because the right asset exists and nobody opens it? Use usage data if there is any; otherwise say the question is open. A distribution or training problem gets a training note, a channel post, or a session, not another paragraph in a document nobody reads.

单独回答以下问题：一线提出这个问题，是因为材料本身有误，还是因为正确的材料存在但没人看？如有使用数据请参考使用数据；否则说明该问题尚无定论。如果是分发或培训问题，应该通过培训通知、渠道发帖或培训 session 解决，而不是在没人看的文档里再加一段内容。

Step 9 - Say what stays, and hand off the rest

步骤9 - 说明无需变动的内容，转交其余需求

List the sections that are current and need no change. That is part of the deliverable - it tells the owner what not to touch.

Route what is not this job:

The user also wants	Run
every competitive asset audited, with no driving change	`competitive-asset-audit`
a battlecard written from scratch	`competitive-battlecard`
a response to one objection now	`competitive-objection-response`
the week's market movement on its own	`competitive-market-briefing`
the external message reviewed	`competitive-messaging-audit`

列出所有有效、无需修改的章节。这也是交付物的一部分——能告诉材料负责人哪些内容不用动。

不属于本任务的需求请转交对应流程：

用户同时需要	使用
对所有竞争相关资产进行审计，且无触发变动	`competitive-asset-audit`
从零撰写一份battlecard	`competitive-battlecard`
立即应对某一条客户异议	`competitive-objection-response`
仅了解本周市场变动情况	`competitive-market-briefing`
审核对外宣传内容	`competitive-messaging-audit`

Step 10 - Produce the artifact

步骤10 - 生成交付物

Use

assets/enablement-refresh-template.md

Return it inline, then offer to save it or to produce the edited sections as separate snippets ready to paste.

使用

assets/enablement-refresh-template.md

模板。

直接内联返回交付物，然后询问是否需要保存，或是将修改后的章节生成为可直接粘贴的独立片段。

Evidence and reasoning rules

证据与推理规则

Read

references/TRUST.md

and

references/METHODOLOGY.md

Especially for enablement:

an existing asset is the thing being verified, never a source
a change that does not touch any claim in the inventory changes nothing; say so rather than manufacturing an update
"unsupported" is a classification about proof, not about truth - a true claim with no approved proof is still one a rep cannot safely make
absence on a competitor's site is not evidence a claim about them is now false
a new line carries its proof and its date
a reversal carries its history
the field asking a question is evidence of a gap; it is not evidence that the answer they want is true

阅读

references/TRUST.md

和

references/METHODOLOGY.md

。

针对赋能内容的特别规则：

现有材料是被验证的对象，绝不能作为信息来源
如果某项变动不涉及盘点清单中的任何主张，就等于没有影响；明确说明这一点，不要凭空编造更新内容
「无依据」是关于佐证的分类，而非关于真实性——即使主张是真实的，如果没有已获批的佐证，销售代表也不能安全地使用
竞争对手官网没有相关内容，不能作为主张不实的证据
每条新表述都必须附带佐证依据和日期
每次主张反转都必须附带历史记录
一线提出问题是存在内容缺口的证据，但不能证明他们想要的答案是真实的

Graceful fallback

降级方案

Read

references/DEGRADATION.md

and

references/LMTY.md

阅读

references/DEGRADATION.md

和

references/LMTY.md

。

Fully connected

完全连接状态

Changes from LMTY and home-product sources, assets from the repository, field questions from calls, proof from approved claims.

可从LMTY和自有产品来源获取变动信息，从仓库获取材料，从通话记录获取一线问题，从已获批主张获取佐证依据。

LMTY connected, no repository or field data

仅连接LMTY，无仓库或一线数据

The user supplies the assets. Classify against current market state; say that field questions and usage were not available, so incompleteness and distribution cannot be assessed.

由用户提供材料。基于当前市场状态进行分类；说明无法获取一线问题和使用数据，因此无法评估内容完整性和分发问题。

Repository connected, no LMTY

仅连接仓库，无LMTY

Classify against current public evidence, point-in-time and dated; say there is no tracked change record, so "stale" rests on the evidence checked today.

基于当前公开证据进行分类，标注时间点和日期；说明没有跟踪的变更记录，因此「过时」判定仅基于当日核查的证据。

Bounded-input mode

受限输入模式

Use only the assets and changes supplied, and say so at the top. Classify against what was supplied. Do not add competitor facts or home-product proof from memory; where a claim cannot be checked against the material, mark it unknown and name what would check it.

仅使用提供的材料和变动信息，并在开头明确说明。基于提供的内容进行分类。不要凭记忆添加竞品事实或自有产品佐证；如果某项主张无法通过提供的材料核查，标记为未知，并说明需要哪些信息才能核查。

References

参考资料

```
references/CONTEXT.md
```
```
references/DEGRADATION.md
```
```
references/INTERNAL.md
```
```
references/LMTY.md
```
```
references/METHODOLOGY.md
```
```
references/QUALITY.md
```
```
references/TRUST.md
```

```
references/CONTEXT.md
```
```
references/DEGRADATION.md
```
```
references/INTERNAL.md
```
```
references/LMTY.md
```
```
references/METHODOLOGY.md
```
```
references/QUALITY.md
```
```
references/TRUST.md
```