Pressure-test the narrative against real client language
Judges where a draft narrative drifts into insider jargon or misnames the buyer problem, and proposes concrete rewrites using the actual words clients use.
In / outDraft narrative + client language corpus (call notes, briefs, transcripts) → annotated draft with gap flags and rewrites
You might say…
“We kept using words that made sense inside the firm but meant nothing to the buyer — this closes that gap.”
What it does
Take a draft narrative and the actual words clients use for their problem (from call notes, briefs, transcripts) and judge where the draft drifts into insider jargon or fails to name the problem the way buyers say it — proposing concrete rewrites that close the gap. Used iteratively until the story lands cleanly.
Trigger: Use iteratively on any narrative draft until the language matches how real clients describe their problem.
Recognise the problem?
The primitives are the commodity part. The fastest next step is a conversation about composing them into something that works for you.
Start a conversation