RCP-004-001-005-COMPETITIVE-EDGE-DEFINER – Competitive Edge Definer – Strategic Differentiation Analysis

Analyzes competitive landscape to identify unique positioning opportunities and defensible differentiation points. Synthesizes competitive research with pain point and value proposition work to create clear ‘why choose us’ positioning. Includes competitive landscape mapping, differentiation analysis, defensibility assessment, and positioning statement creation.
Recipe Name: RCP-004-001-005-COMPETITIVE-EDGE-DEFINER – Competitive Edge Definer – Strategic Differentiation Analysis
RCP-004-001-005-COMPETITIVE-EDGE-DEFINER – Competitive Edge Definer – Strategic Differentiation Analysis
Analyzes competitive landscape to identify
unique positioning opportunities and defensible
differentiation points. Synthesizes competitive research
with pain point and value proposition work to create clear
positioning. Includes landscape mapping, differentiation
analysis, defensibility assessment, and positioning
statement creation.
Print Recipe
Multi-Recipe Combo Stage Single Recipe
Recipe Category CFT-FWK-COOKBK-BRAND-ID – CRAFT Cookbook – Branding and Identity
Recipe Subcategory Blogging with A.I., Brainstorming with A.I.
Recipe Difficulty Easy
Recipe Tag: Foundational | Introduced in the POC

Requirements

  • Any AI Chat Platform (platform-agnostic recipe) Any of the following: Claude (Anthropic), ChatGPT (OpenAI), Gemini (Google), Grok (X.ai), Perplexity, Microsoft Copilot

How To Start
 

STEP 1: Persona Activation and Context Loading
  • Activate {PERSONA_NAME} continuing from Recipe 4. Load
    required inputs from previous recipes: pain point
    summary from Recipe 3 and value proposition summary
    from Recipe 4. Set depth mode which determines
    competitor count (quick 3-5, standard 5-8,
    comprehensive 8-12) and analysis detail level. Note
    any known competitors and competitive research
    provided.
STEP 2: Competitive Landscape Mapping
  • Identify competitors across three categories. Direct
    competitors offer same solution type for same pain
    points to similar audience. Indirect competitors use
    different approach but address same pain points.
    Adjacent solutions are related tools users might
    combine or choose instead. For each competitor,
    document name, category type, core offering, target
    audience, pricing model, and claimed differentiators.
STEP 3: Competitive Positioning Matrix
  • Create positioning map showing where competitors sit
    relative to key dimensions. Primary axis shows
    complexity from simple to advanced. Secondary axis
    shows target from individual to enterprise. Plot each
    competitor position and your proposed position.
    Identify gaps and opportunities in the landscape.
    Provide key observations about crowded areas and
    underserved segments.
STEP 4: Feature Comparison Analysis
  • For standard and comprehensive modes, create feature
    comparison matrix across key capabilities. List core
    features and rate each competitor. Identify market
    gaps where needed capabilities are missing. Note
    unique capabilities that differentiate your offering.
    Connect feature gaps to pain points from Recipe 3.
STEP 5: Differentiation Analysis
  • Analyze differentiation across five dimensions.
    Technology covers your technical approach. Methodology
    covers your framework or process. Target audience
    covers your specific focus. Philosophy covers your
    positioning and values. Experience covers your UX
    approach. Rate strength in each dimension using 1-5
    scale. Identify which dimensions are most defensible.
STEP 6: Gap Analysis
  • Identify competitive gaps representing opportunities.
    Underserved pain points are problems competitors do
    not address well. Feature gaps are capabilities market
    needs but no one offers. Positioning gaps are audience
    segments or philosophies no one owns. Experience gaps
    are UX friction points across market. For each gap,
    describe it, explain why it exists, assess if you can
    fill it, and rate opportunity size.
STEP 7: Defensibility Assessment
  • Evaluate which differentiation points are defensible
    long-term. Rate each advantage on three criteria:
    time to replicate (weeks to years), resource
    requirements (minimal to extreme), and network effects
    (none to strong). Calculate overall defensibility
    score. Classify as moat (4+ stars), strong advantage,
    moderate advantage, or weak advantage. Identify which
    advantages competitors can easily copy.
STEP 8: Positioning Statement Creation
  • Craft positioning statements using standard framework:
    For target audience, who have specific need, your
    product is category definition, that delivers key
    benefit, unlike competitive alternative, you provide
    unique differentiator. Generate 2-4 variations based
    on depth mode. Each variation emphasizes different
    positioning focus (technology, methodology, audience,
    philosophy, experience).
STEP 9: Competitive Advantages Summary
  • Compile top competitive advantages based on moat level,
    pain point alignment, value proposition support, and
    positioning focus. For each advantage, state it
    concisely, explain why it matters, show how it
    delivers value, demonstrate defensibility, and provide
    confidence rating. Create Why Choose Us framework
    with honest comparisons to key alternatives.
STEP 10: Output Generation and Strategic Synthesis
  • Generate complete competitive positioning package.
    Create executive summary with market position,
    landscape overview, defensibility assessment, and
    primary positioning statement. Generate Competitive
    Advantages Summary Block for use in Recipes 6-7.
    Provide validation questions and recommended next
    steps. Confirm readiness to proceed.

When to Use This Recipe

Use this recipe as the fifth step in brand development
after completing Recipes 1-4. The competitive positioning
developed here feeds directly into:
– Elevator Pitch Builder (differentiation core)
– Brand Profile Synthesizer (positioning foundation)
Also use when entering new markets, responding to
competitive threats, validating positioning before major
launches, or preparing for investor presentations.

Recipe FAQ

Q: How many competitors should I analyze?
A: Quick mode analyzes 3-5 key competitors for rapid
validation. Standard mode analyzes 5-8 for balanced
depth. Comprehensive mode analyzes 8-12 including
direct, indirect, and adjacent solutions for full
market understanding.
Q: What if I do not know my competitors?
A: {PERSONA_NAME} identifies competitors based on your
pain point summary and value proposition. You compete
with anyone who could solve your customers problem,
not just direct feature competitors. Include DIY
approaches and status quo as alternatives.
Q: How do I know if an advantage is defensible?
A: Defensible advantages score high on three criteria:
time to replicate (years, not weeks), resource
requirements (significant, not minimal), and network
effects (gets stronger as you grow). Moat-level
advantages score 4+ stars across all three.
Q: Should I include honest competitor comparisons?
A: Yes. The Why Choose Us framework includes when
competitors are better choices. Honesty builds trust.
Not everyone is your customer, and self-selection
prevents churn from disappointed mismatches.
Example 1: Fine Dining Restaurant (Standard Mode)
Parameters:
– depth_mode: standard
– pain_point_summary: From Recipe 3 (finding
authentic experiences, special occasion anxiety)
– value_prop_summary: From Recipe 4 (Transform
special occasions into unforgettable
Mediterranean journeys)
– known_competitors: Local fine dining, chain
restaurants, farm-to-table competitors
– positioning_focus: philosophy
Output:
Competitive Landscape:
Direct Competitors: 3 local fine dining venues
Indirect Competitors: 2 upscale chains, catering
Adjacent Solutions: Home cooking, meal delivery
Positioning Matrix:
Gap identified: No local venue combines authentic
farm-to-table sourcing with Mediterranean focus
at mid-premium price point.
Differentiation Analysis:
Technology: 2/5 (standard kitchen operations)
Methodology: 4/5 (direct farm relationships)
Target Audience: 4/5 (food enthusiasts, business)
Philosophy: 5/5 (ingredient story, authenticity)
Experience: 4/5 (chef transparency, sourcing)
Defensibility Assessment:
MOAT: Local farm relationships (years to build,
exclusive agreements possible)
Strong: Chef reputation and story
Moderate: Menu authenticity (can be copied)
Weak: Ambiance (easily replicated)
Positioning Statements:
Variation 1 (Philosophy): “For food enthusiasts
who crave authentic Mediterranean cuisine, Terra
and Olive is the farm-to-table destination that
delivers ingredient stories worth sharing, unlike
restaurants that promise authenticity but source
from distributors, we maintain direct
relationships with local farms.”
Variation 2 (Experience): “For professionals
hosting important occasions, Terra and Olive is
the reliable fine dining choice that makes you
look thoughtful and sophisticated, unlike venues
where quality varies, we deliver consistent
excellence every visit.”
Top Competitive Advantages:
1. Direct farm sourcing (Defensibility: MOAT)
2. Ingredient provenance transparency (Strong)
3. Mediterranean specialty focus (Strong)
Why Choose Us vs Alternatives:
vs Local Fine Dining: Choose us for authentic
sourcing story; choose them for specific cuisines
vs Chain Upscale: Choose us for uniqueness;
choose them for predictability and rewards
vs Home Cooking: Choose us for special occasions;
stay home for casual family meals
{PERSONA_NAME} Confidence: 85%
Note: Philosophy differentiation is strongest angle.
Farm relationships create defensible moat.
Example 2: Environmental Consulting (Quick Mode)
Parameters:
– depth_mode: quick
– pain_point_summary: From Recipe 3 (board-ready
reporting gap, regulatory uncertainty)
– value_prop_summary: From Recipe 4 (Sustainability
insights in boardroom language)
– known_competitors: Big 4 consulting, boutique
sustainability firms
– positioning_focus: methodology
Output:
Competitive Landscape (Quick):
Direct: 2 boutique sustainability consultants
Indirect: Big 4 ESG practices
Adjacent: Sustainability software platforms
Key Positioning Gap:
No competitor focuses specifically on business
case translation for sustainability directors.
Most focus on compliance or technical reporting.
Top 3 Competitive Advantages:
1. Executive communication methodology (Strong)
2. ROI-focused sustainability metrics (Strong)
3. Director empowerment positioning (Moderate)
Positioning Statement:
“For sustainability directors who need to
translate environmental impact into business
value, GreenPath Solutions is the strategic
consulting partner that makes you the boardroom
voice, unlike compliance-focused consultants,
we specialize in executive communication and
business case development.”
{PERSONA_NAME} Quick Assessment: “Methodology
differentiation is defensible – competitors focus
on technical compliance, not business translation.
This positioning gap is real and fillable. Ready
for Recipe 6.”
Example 3: Project Management SaaS (Comprehensive Mode)
Parameters:
– depth_mode: comprehensive
– pain_point_summary: From Recipe 3 (tool sprawl,
priority confusion, team alignment)
– value_prop_summary: From Recipe 4 (Manage all
tasks in one intelligent workspace)
– known_competitors: Asana, Monday, Notion,
Trello, ClickUp, Linear, Basecamp
– competitive_research: Market analysis attached
– positioning_focus: experience
Output:
Competitive Landscape (Comprehensive):
Direct Competitors: 5 (Asana, Monday, ClickUp,
Linear, Notion)
Indirect Competitors: 4 (Spreadsheets, email,
Slack, documents)
Adjacent Solutions: 3 (Time tracking, reporting,
communication tools)
Feature Comparison Matrix:
12 features analyzed across 8 competitors
Gaps identified: AI prioritization, context
preservation, simplicity at scale
Differentiation Analysis:
Technology: 4/5 (AI prioritization engine)
Methodology: 3/5 (standard task management)
Target Audience: 4/5 (overwhelmed managers)
Philosophy: 4/5 (simplicity over features)
Experience: 5/5 (intelligent defaults, minimal)
Defensibility Scorecard:
MOAT: None yet (early stage)
Strong: AI prioritization algorithm (12 months)
Strong: UX simplicity philosophy (culture-based)
Moderate: Integration ecosystem (6 months)
Weak: Core task features (easily copied)
Positioning Statements (4 variations):
1. Experience-focused (recommended)
2. Technology-focused (AI angle)
3. Audience-focused (overwhelmed managers)
4. Philosophy-focused (simplicity movement)
Top 7 Competitive Advantages documented with full
mapping to pain points and value propositions.
Strategic Recommendations:
– Double down on AI prioritization (build moat)
– Protect UX simplicity (cultural advantage)
– Expect feature parity (competitors will copy)
– Build network effects through templates
{PERSONA_NAME} Confidence: 78%
Note: No true moats yet, but strong advantages in
AI and UX. Need to build defensibility before
competitors catch up. Timeline: 12-18 months.

Actual Recipe Code

(Copy This Plaintext Code To Use)
# =========================================================
# START RECIPE-ID: RCP-004-001-005-COMPETITIVE-EDGE-v2.00a
# =========================================================
# =========================================================
# PERSONA REFERENCE
# =========================================================
# This recipe uses the BRAND_PERSONA established in Recipe 1
# If not available, defaults are used
IF BRAND_PERSONA not in PROJECT_VARIABLES:
Load defaults:
PERSONA_NAME = "Morgan"
PERSONA_TITLE = "Strategic Brand Architect"
PERSONA_TIER = "B"
ELSE:
Load from PROJECT_VARIABLES:
PERSONA_NAME = BRAND_PERSONA["name"]
PERSONA_TITLE = BRAND_PERSONA["title"]
PERSONA_TIER = BRAND_PERSONA["tier"]
# =========================================================
# RECIPE DEFINITION
# =========================================================
COMPETITIVE_EDGE_DEFINER = Recipe(
recipe_id="RCP-004-001-005-COMPETITIVE-EDGE-v2.00a",
title="Competitive Edge Definer",
description="""
Analyzes competitive landscape to identify unique
positioning opportunities and defensible
differentiation points. Synthesizes competitive
research with pain point and value proposition
work to create clear positioning. Includes
landscape mapping, differentiation analysis,
defensibility assessment, and positioning
statement creation. Guided by {PERSONA_NAME}.
""",
category="CAT-004-BRAND-IDENTITY",
subcategory="SUBCAT-001-FOUNDATION",
difficulty="hard",
estimated_time="45-90 minutes (varies by depth)",
version="2.00a",
parameters={
"depth_mode": {
"type": "string",
"required": True,
"options": [
"quick",
"standard",
"comprehensive"
],
"default": "standard",
"description": "Analysis depth level"
},
"pain_point_summary": {
"type": "text_block",
"required": True,
"description": "Pain points from Recipe 3"
},
"value_prop_summary": {
"type": "text_block",
"required": True,
"description": "Value prop from Recipe 4"
},
"known_competitors": {
"type": "list",
"required": False,
"description": "Known competitors (AI adds more)"
},
"competitive_research": {
"type": "text",
"required": False,
"description": "Market research or analysis"
},
"positioning_focus": {
"type": "string",
"required": False,
"options": [
"technology",
"methodology",
"audience",
"philosophy",
"experience",
"balanced"
],
"default": "balanced",
"description": "Primary differentiation angle"
}
},
prompt_template="""
#H->AI::Directive: (Execute Competitive Edge Definer)
#H->AI::Context: (Identifying defensible differentiation
based on Recipes 3-4)
#H->AI::Parameters: (
depth_mode: {depth_mode}
pain_point_summary: [provided]
value_prop_summary: [provided]
known_competitors: {known_competitors or "None"}
positioning_focus: {positioning_focus}
)
# =========================================================
# STEP 0: PERSONA ACTIVATION AND CONTEXT LOADING
# =========================================================
#AI->H::PersonaSwitch: ({PERSONA_NAME} continuing from
Recipe 4)
#AI->H::Status: (Loading previous recipe outputs for
synthesis)
CONTEXT_INTEGRATION = {
"from_recipe_3": pain_point_summary,
"from_recipe_4": value_prop_summary,
"depth_setting": depth_mode,
"analysis_targets": {
"quick": "3-5 competitors, top 3 advantages",
"standard": "5-8 competitors, top 5 advantages",
"comprehensive": "8-12 competitors, top 7 advantages"
}
}
#AI->H::{PERSONA_NAME}: (Let us identify what makes you
genuinely different in this market. Not marketing
fluff – real, defensible differentiation that
competitors cannot easily replicate. We will analyze
the landscape systematically, then craft positioning
that resonates with your target audience while being
honest about your competitive reality.)
#AI->H::{PERSONA_NAME}: (I will be direct: if I see
positioning claims that feel aggressive or
unsupported, I will flag them. Better to know now
than after launch. My confidence ratings will
reflect both market reality and competitive dynamics.)
# =========================================================
# STEP 1: COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE MAPPING
# =========================================================
#AI->H::Status: (Mapping competitive landscape across
three competitor types)
#AI->H::{PERSONA_NAME}: (First, let us identify who you
are actually competing with. Most founders think too
narrowly – you compete with anyone who could solve
your customer's problem, not just direct feature
competitors.)
1.1: COMPETITOR IDENTIFICATION
COMPETITOR_CATEGORIES = {
"direct_competitors": {
"definition": "Same solution type, same pain
points, similar target audience",
"criteria": [
"Solves same core problem",
"Uses similar approach",
"Targets same user segments",
"Direct feature overlap"
]
},
"indirect_competitors": {
"definition": "Different approach but addresses
same pain points",
"criteria": [
"Solves same problem differently",
"Different features, same outcome",
"May target different segments",
"Alternative methodologies"
]
},
"adjacent_solutions": {
"definition": "Related tools users might combine
or choose instead",
"criteria": [
"Solves related but distinct problems",
"Part of user workflow ecosystem",
"Potential integration partners",
"Users might choose one over other"
]
}
}
#AI->H::{PERSONA_NAME}::Interactive: (Let me analyze the
competitive landscape based on your solution. I will
start with competitors you mentioned, then add others
from market research.)
FOR EACH COMPETITOR_CATEGORY:
1. List known competitors (from parameters)
2. Identify additional competitors from:
– Market research provided
– Common knowledge of industry
– Pain point analysis (who else solves these?)
– Value prop positioning (who makes similar claims?)
3. For each competitor, document:
– Name and category type
– Core offering (1-2 sentences)
– Target audience
– Pricing model (if known)
– Key differentiators they claim
1.2: COMPETITIVE POSITIONING MATRIX
#AI->H::{PERSONA_NAME}: (Now let us map where everyone
sits in the market. This matrix shows how competitors
position themselves across key dimensions.)
POSITIONING_DIMENSIONS = {
"primary_axis": "Complexity (Simple to Advanced)",
"secondary_axis": "Target (Individual to Enterprise)",
"additional_factors": [
"Price point (Free to Premium)",
"Technical depth (Casual to Professional)",
"Customization (Fixed to Flexible)",
"Learning curve (Minutes to Weeks)"
]
}
CREATE COMPETITIVE_POSITIONING_MATRIX:
+—————————————————+
| COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE MAP |
+—————————————————+
| |
| Enterprise | [Comp A] [Comp B] |
| | |
| | [Comp C] [GAP] [YOUR SOLUTION] |
| | |
| Individual | [Comp D] [Comp E] |
| | |
+————+————————————–+
Simple Moderate Advanced
#AI->H::{PERSONA_NAME}::Analysis: (Here is what I see in
the competitive landscape: [Provide 3-5 key
observations about market positioning, gaps, crowded
areas, and opportunities])
1.3: FEATURE COMPARISON ANALYSIS
IF depth_mode IN ["standard", "comprehensive"]:
CREATE FEATURE_MATRIX:
+———————————————–+
| FEATURE COMPARISON MATRIX |
+———————————————–+
| Feature | You | Comp A | Comp B | Gap? |
+—————-+—–+——–+——–+——+
| [Feature 1] | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| [Feature 2] | Yes | No | No | Yes |
| [Feature 3] | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
+———————————————–+
Identify:
– Features only you offer (unique capabilities)
– Features all competitors have (table stakes)
– Features market needs but no one offers (gaps)
– Features competitors have that you lack (risks)
# =========================================================
# STEP 2: DIFFERENTIATION ANALYSIS
# =========================================================
#AI->H::Status: (Analyzing differentiation across five
strategic dimensions)
#AI->H::{PERSONA_NAME}: (Let us go beyond features to
analyze HOW you are different. There are five
dimensions where differentiation can occur.)
2.1: FIVE-DIMENSION DIFFERENTIATION FRAMEWORK
DIFFERENTIATION_DIMENSIONS = {
"technology": {
"description": "Your technical approach,
architecture, or capabilities",
"questions": [
"What technology choices set you apart?",
"Is your technical approach unique?",
"Do you have proprietary technology?"
]
},
"methodology": {
"description": "Your process, framework, or
systematic approach",
"questions": [
"Do you have a unique methodology?",
"Is your approach documented/teachable?",
"Does your process deliver better outcomes?"
]
},
"target_audience": {
"description": "Your specific audience focus and
specialization",
"questions": [
"Do you serve a specific niche better?",
"Is your audience underserved by others?",
"Do you understand them more deeply?"
]
},
"philosophy": {
"description": "Your beliefs, values, and
positioning stance",
"questions": [
"What do you believe that others do not?",
"What is your contrarian point of view?",
"What principles guide your decisions?"
]
},
"experience": {
"description": "Your user experience, design, and
interaction approach",
"questions": [
"Is your UX meaningfully different?",
"Do users feel different using your product?",
"Is your experience simpler or more powerful?"
]
}
}
2.2: DIFFERENTIATION STRENGTH ASSESSMENT
FOR EACH DIMENSION:
Rate strength on 1-5 scale:
5 = Market-leading differentiation
4 = Strong differentiation
3 = Moderate differentiation
2 = Weak differentiation
1 = No meaningful differentiation
Assess defensibility:
– Can competitors easily match this?
– What would it take them to catch up?
– Does this advantage compound over time?
CREATE DIFFERENTIATION_SCORECARD:
+—————————————————+
| DIFFERENTIATION STRENGTH ANALYSIS |
+—————————————————+
| Dimension | Your Approach | Rating | Defend? |
+————-+——————+——–+———+
| Technology | [Your approach] | X/5 | [Y/N] |
| Methodology | [Your approach] | X/5 | [Y/N] |
| Audience | [Your focus] | X/5 | [Y/N] |
| Philosophy | [Your position] | X/5 | [Y/N] |
| Experience | [Your UX] | X/5 | [Y/N] |
+—————————————————+
#AI->H::{PERSONA_NAME}::Strategic: (Here is what stands
out: [Provide 2-4 key insights about your strongest
differentiation dimensions and which are most likely
to resonate with target audience])
2.3: GAP ANALYSIS
#AI->H::{PERSONA_NAME}: (Let us look at what competitors
are not doing well – these gaps represent your
opportunities.)
IDENTIFY AND DOCUMENT:
1. Underserved pain points:
Pain points competitors do not address well
2. Feature gaps:
Capabilities market needs but no one offers
3. Positioning gaps:
Audience segments or philosophies no one owns
4. Experience gaps:
UX friction points across market
5. Methodology gaps:
Approaches or frameworks no one provides
FOR EACH GAP:
– Describe the gap
– Explain why it exists (too hard? overlooked?)
– Assess if you can fill it (realistically)
– Rate opportunity size (large/medium/small)
– Note risks or challenges
#AI->H::{PERSONA_NAME}::Reality: (Have you considered:
[Pose 2-3 reality-check questions about gaps that
may be harder to fill than they appear])
# =========================================================
# STEP 3: DEFENSIBILITY ASSESSMENT
# =========================================================
#AI->H::Status: (Evaluating which differentiation points
are defensible long-term)
#AI->H::{PERSONA_NAME}: (Being different is not enough –
you need advantages competitors cannot easily
replicate. Let us assess defensibility honestly.
Some advantages last months, others last years.)
3.1: DEFENSIBILITY CRITERIA FRAMEWORK
DEFENSIBILITY_ASSESSMENT = {
"time_to_replicate": {
"question": "How long to copy this?",
"scale": {
"5 stars": "Years (architecture, network)",
"4 stars": "12-18 months (complex R&D)",
"3 stars": "6-12 months (specialized)",
"2 stars": "3-6 months (moderate effort)",
"1 star": "Weeks to 3 months (easy)"
}
},
"resource_requirements": {
"question": "What resources to replicate?",
"scale": {
"5 stars": "Extreme (team, capital, expertise)",
"4 stars": "Significant (dedicated team)",
"3 stars": "Moderate (skilled developers)",
"2 stars": "Minimal (good developer)",
"1 star": "Easy (junior could copy)"
}
},
"network_effects": {
"question": "Gets stronger as you grow?",
"scale": {
"5 stars": "Strong (compounds exponentially)",
"4 stars": "Moderate (user base creates value)",
"3 stars": "Weak (some benefit from scale)",
"2 stars": "Minimal (growth helps but limited)",
"1 star": "None (pure feature, matchable)"
}
}
}
3.2: MOAT IDENTIFICATION
#AI->H::{PERSONA_NAME}: (Your moats are advantages that
competitors cannot easily cross. Let us identify
what you are building that could become sustainable
competitive advantage.)
FOR EACH DIFFERENTIATION POINT (from Step 2):
1. Assess against 3 defensibility criteria
2. Calculate overall defensibility score (average)
3. Classify:
– MOAT: Overall score 4+ stars
– STRONG ADVANTAGE: Score 3.5 to 4 stars
– MODERATE ADVANTAGE: Score 3 to 3.5 stars
– WEAK ADVANTAGE: Score below 3 stars
CREATE DEFENSIBILITY_SCORECARD:
+—————————————————+
| COMPETITIVE DEFENSIBILITY ANALYSIS |
+—————————————————+
| Advantage | Time | Resource | Network | Class |
+—————-+——+———-+———+——-+
| [Advantage 1] | X/5 | X/5 | X/5 | [Class]|
| [Advantage 2] | X/5 | X/5 | X/5 | [Class]|
| [Advantage 3] | X/5 | X/5 | X/5 | [Class]|
+—————————————————+
Legend:
MOAT = Sustainable competitive advantage (4+ stars)
Strong = Significant but not unbreachable (3.5-4)
Moderate = Temporary, plan for copycats (3-3.5)
Weak = Easy to replicate, not strategic (below 3)
#AI->H::{PERSONA_NAME}::Assessment: (Your moats – if you
have any – are: [List MOAT-level advantages]. These
are what you should emphasize in positioning and
protect strategically. Everything else is temporary
and will be copied.)
3.3: STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATIONS
IF depth_mode == "comprehensive":
#AI->H::{PERSONA_NAME}::Strategic: (Based on
defensibility analysis, here are strategic
priorities:)
PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR:
1. Double Down:
Advantages with high defensibility – invest
2. Protect:
Moderate advantages that need strengthening
3. Expect Parity:
Weak advantages that will be copied – plan
4. Build Moats:
Opportunities to create stronger defensibility
FOR EACH RECOMMENDATION:
– Specific action or investment area
– Expected timeline to strengthen position
– Resource requirements
– Risk if not addressed
# =========================================================
# STEP 4: POSITIONING STATEMENT CREATION
# =========================================================
#AI->H::Status: (Crafting positioning statements that
crystallize your differentiation)
#AI->H::{PERSONA_NAME}: (Now we translate everything into
crisp positioning statements. This is not your
tagline or homepage copy – it is your internal north
star for all messaging.)
4.1: POSITIONING STATEMENT FRAMEWORK
POSITIONING_TEMPLATE = {
"structure": [
"For [target audience]",
"Who [need or opportunity]",
"[Product name] is a [category/definition]",
"That [key benefit or outcome]",
"Unlike [competitive alternative]",
"We [unique differentiator or approach]"
],
"guidelines": {
"target_audience": "Specific from Recipe 2",
"need": "Top pain point from Recipe 3",
"category": "How you define your space",
"benefit": "Primary from Recipe 4",
"alternative": "Main competitor or approach",
"differentiator": "Your moat or strongest advantage"
}
}
4.2: POSITIONING STATEMENT GENERATION
Based on positioning_focus = {positioning_focus}:
Generate positioning statement variations:
IF depth_mode == "quick":
Generate 2 variations
IF depth_mode == "standard":
Generate 3 variations
IF depth_mode == "comprehensive":
Generate 4 variations
FOR EACH VARIATION:
POSITIONING STATEMENT VARIATION {N}:
Focus: {dimension emphasized}
Statement:
For [target audience]
Who [specific need]
[Your solution] is a [category]
That [key benefit]
Unlike [alternative]
We [differentiator]
Strengths: [What works well about this angle]
Considerations: [What to watch for]
Best Context: [When to use this variation]
{PERSONA_NAME} Confidence: X/5
4.3: POSITIONING STATEMENT RECOMMENDATION
#AI->H::{PERSONA_NAME}::Recommendation: (
Primary Positioning Statement:
[Your recommended statement]
Why This One:
– Connects to top pain point from Recipe 3
– Leverages your most defensible advantage
– Resonates with primary persona from Recipe 2
– Differentiates from main competitive threat
Use Alternative Variations When:
– [Variation 2]: [Specific context]
– [Variation 3]: [Specific context]
)
# =========================================================
# STEP 5: COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES PRIORITIZATION
# =========================================================
#AI->H::Status: (Compiling and prioritizing competitive
advantages)
#AI->H::{PERSONA_NAME}: (Let us identify your most
powerful competitive advantages – the ones that are
true, defensible, and relevant to your audience.)
5.1: ADVANTAGE SELECTION CRITERIA
SELECTION_CRITERIA = {
"requirements": [
"True (you actually deliver this)",
"Relevant (target audience cares)",
"Differentiated (competitors cannot easily claim)"
],
"prioritization": [
"Moat-level advantages first",
"Advantages addressing highest pain points",
"Advantages supporting primary value props",
"Advantages aligning with positioning focus"
]
}
SELECT TOP ADVANTAGES:
quick: 3 advantages
standard: 5 advantages
comprehensive: 7 advantages
FOR EACH ADVANTAGE:
1. State advantage concisely (1 sentence)
2. Explain why it matters (connect to pain point)
3. Show how it delivers value (connect to value prop)
4. Demonstrate defensibility (reference assessment)
5. Provide proof points (if available)
6. {PERSONA_NAME} confidence rating
CREATE COMPETITIVE_ADVANTAGES_SUMMARY:
TOP COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES
==========================
ADVANTAGE #1: [Concise Statement]
Why It Matters: [Connection to audience pain point]
How It Delivers: [Connection to value proposition]
Defensibility: X/5 [Time/Resources/Network]
Proof Points: [Evidence if available]
{PERSONA_NAME} Confidence: X/5
Rationale: [Why confident this will resonate]
—
ADVANTAGE #2: [Statement]
[Repeat format]
—
[Continue for selected number of advantages]
5.2: WHY CHOOSE US FRAMEWORK
#AI->H::{PERSONA_NAME}: (Now let us create ready-to-use
comparison talking points. These answer the critical
question: Why should I choose you instead of
[Alternative]?)
SELECT TOP 3-5 COMPETITIVE ALTERNATIVES:
– Primary direct competitor
– Category incumbent/market leader
– Common DIY/manual approach
– Adjacent solution users might consider
– Status quo (doing nothing)
FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE:
CREATE Why Us vs [Alternative] talking point:
WHY CHOOSE [YOUR SOLUTION] vs [ALTERNATIVE]
What They Offer:
[Competitor value prop, honestly stated]
What We Offer:
[Your value prop, differentiated]
Choose Us If You:
– [Specific situation where you are better]
– [Another situation where you excel]
– [Third situation if relevant]
Choose Them If You:
– [Honest assessment of when they are better]
– [Another scenario where they preferred]
Key Differentiator:
[The ONE thing that matters most]
#AI->H::{PERSONA_NAME}::Honest: (I have included Choose
Them If sections because honesty builds trust. Not
everyone is your customer, and that is okay. Better
they self-select out than sign up and churn.)
5.3: ADVANTAGE-TO-MESSAGING MAP
IF depth_mode IN ["standard", "comprehensive"]:
#AI->H::{PERSONA_NAME}: (Let us map how each advantage
flows through your messaging hierarchy:)
FOR EACH TOP ADVANTAGE:
CREATE MESSAGING_MAP:
ADVANTAGE: [Statement]
Pain Point Addressed: [From Recipe 3]
Value Proposition: [From Recipe 4]
Positioning Statement: [Which variation]
Proof Points: [How to demonstrate]
Messaging Applications:
– Homepage: [How to communicate]
– Pitch: [How to include – Recipe 6]
– Documentation: [How to reinforce]
– Community: [How to emphasize]
# =========================================================
# STEP 6: OUTPUT GENERATION AND STRATEGIC SYNTHESIS
# =========================================================
#AI->H::Status: (Generating complete competitive
positioning package)
#AI->H::{PERSONA_NAME}: (Let us package everything for
your use in Recipes 6-7 and beyond.)
6.1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CREATE COMPETITIVE_POSITIONING_SUMMARY:
=============================================================
COMPETITIVE POSITIONING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Generated: {current_date}
For: {business_name}
Guided by: {PERSONA_NAME} ({PERSONA_TITLE})
=============================================================
MARKET POSITION:
– Category: [Your category definition]
– Target: [Specific audience from Recipe 2]
– Positioning: [One-line summary of unique position]
COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE:
– Direct Competitors: [Count] identified
– Indirect Competitors: [Count] identified
– Primary Differentiation: [Top 1-2 dimensions]
– Market Gaps: [Top 1-2 opportunities]
DEFENSIBILITY:
– Moat-Level Advantages: [Count] identified
– Strong Advantages: [Count] identified
– Timeline: [Overall competitive defensibility]
STRATEGIC PRIORITY:
[Your #1 competitive advantage and why it matters]
PRIMARY POSITIONING STATEMENT:
[Your recommended positioning statement]
{PERSONA_NAME} OVERALL CONFIDENCE: X/5
Confidence Rationale: [Overall assessment]
=============================================================
6.2: COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES SUMMARY BLOCK
#AI->H::Note: (This block feeds directly into Recipe 6
Elevator Pitch and Recipe 7 Brand Profile. Copy this
complete block when executing those recipes.)
CREATE RECIPE_OUTPUT_BLOCK:
=============================================================
COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES SUMMARY BLOCK
Output from Recipe 5: Competitive Edge Definer
For use in: Recipe 6 (Pitch), Recipe 7 (Brand Profile)
=============================================================
POSITIONING STATEMENT:
[Your primary positioning statement]
CATEGORY DEFINITION:
[How you define your competitive category]
TOP COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES:
1. [Advantage #1]
– Pain point addressed: [Connection]
– Value delivered: [Connection]
– Defensibility: [Rating]
2. [Advantage #2]
[Same format]
3. [Advantage #3]
[Same format]
[Continue for all selected advantages]
COMPETITIVE DIFFERENTIATION PRIORITIES:
– Primary: [Strongest differentiation dimension]
– Secondary: [Second-strongest dimension]
– Supporting: [Additional differentiators]
WHY CHOOSE US KEY POINTS:
– vs [Primary Competitor]: [Key differentiator]
– vs [Category Leader]: [Key differentiator]
– vs [DIY/Status Quo]: [Key differentiator]
{PERSONA_NAME} STRATEGIC NOTE:
[1-2 sentences on leveraging advantages in pitch]
=============================================================
#AI->H::Deliverable: (Competitive Advantages Summary Block
created – save this for Recipes 6 and 7)
6.3: VALIDATION QUESTIONS
#AI->H::{PERSONA_NAME}::Questions: (Before finalizing,
consider these validation questions:)
1. Would your target audience (from Recipe 2) actually
care about these differentiation points?
2. Are your claimed advantages verifiable? Do you have
proof points or just assertions?
3. If a competitor copied your top advantage, what
would you fall back on?
4. Does your positioning feel authentic to your team,
or like marketing speak?
5. Can you communicate your differentiation in 30
seconds to a stranger?
6.4: COMPLETION AND NEXT STEPS
#AI->H::Status: (Recipe 5: Competitive Edge Definer
execution complete)
Completion Framework:
Summary of Deliverables:
– Competitive Landscape Map with {count} competitors
– Differentiation Analysis across 5 dimensions
– Defensibility Scorecard with moat identification
– {count} Positioning Statement Variations
– Top {count} Competitive Advantages with mapping
– Why Choose Us Framework with honest comparisons
– Competitive Advantages Summary Block for R6-R7
– Executive Summary with strategic priorities
What We Have Established:
1. WHO you compete with: Full landscape mapped
2. HOW you are different: 5-dimension analysis
3. WHAT is defensible: Moats vs temporary advantages
4. WHY choose you: Clear positioning statements
5. HOW to communicate: Advantage-to-messaging maps
#AI->H::Note: (Save the Competitive Advantages Summary
Block – you will need it for Recipes 6 and 7)
Strategic Bridge to Recipe 6:
"With your competitive positioning defined, we can
now build your elevator pitch. Recipe 6 (Elevator
Pitch Builder) will distill everything into a
compelling 30-60 second pitch that captures your
unique value and differentiation.
The summary block we created provides Recipe 6 with
your positioning statement, top advantages, and why
choose us talking points."
#AI->H::RequiredQuestion: (Ready to proceed with Recipe 6
(Elevator Pitch Builder), or would you like to
refine any aspect of your competitive positioning?)
#AI->H::COM::Status: (COMPETITIVE-EDGE-DEFINER completed
successfully – positioning established and ready for
elevator pitch development)
""",
outputs={
"COMPETITIVE_POSITIONING_SUMMARY": {
"format": "Executive summary block",
"purpose": "High-level positioning overview",
"usage": "Strategic planning reference"
},
"COMPETITIVE_ADVANTAGES_BLOCK": {
"format": "Structured summary for R6-R7",
"purpose": "Critical input for downstream",
"usage": "Copy/paste for Recipes 6 and 7"
},
"POSITIONING_STATEMENTS": {
"format": "Multiple variations with analysis",
"purpose": "Internal messaging north star",
"usage": "Guide all brand communications"
},
"DEFENSIBILITY_SCORECARD": {
"format": "Ratings with classification",
"purpose": "Identify moats vs temporary",
"usage": "Strategic investment decisions"
},
"WHY_CHOOSE_US_FRAMEWORK": {
"format": "Competitor comparisons",
"purpose": "Sales and positioning support",
"usage": "Honest competitive discussions"
}
},
integration_notes="""
RECIPE DEPENDENCIES:
– Prerequisites: Recipe 3 (Pain Points),
Recipe 4 (Value Proposition)
– Feeds into: Recipe 6 (Elevator Pitch) –
advantages form pitch core
– Also feeds: Recipe 7 (Brand Profile) –
positioning shapes brand personality
COOKBOOK INTEGRATION:
– Category: CAT-004-BRAND-IDENTITY
– Subcategory: SUBCAT-001-FOUNDATION
– Position: Fifth recipe in workflow
– Related recipes: Synthesizes R3-R4, feeds R6-R7
– Persona: {PERSONA_NAME} continues, brings
competitive intelligence expertise
OUTPUT FILES:
– Competitive Positioning Executive Summary
– Competitive Advantages Summary Block
– Positioning Statement Variations
– Defensibility Scorecard
– Why Choose Us Framework
WORKFLOW PATTERNS:
Standard: R1 -> R2 -> R3 -> R4 -> R5 -> R6
Express: R5(quick) for rapid validation
Deep: R5(comprehensive) for launch preparation
PERSONA CONTINUITY:
– {PERSONA_NAME} activated in Recipe 1
– Maintained through Recipes 2-4
– Continues in Recipe 5 with competitive focus
– Strategic framework: Map -> Analyze -> Assess ->
Position -> Synthesize
– Confidence ratings throughout
COMMON MODIFICATIONS:
– Add industry_specific_competitors for verticals
– Extend defensibility criteria for specific moats
– Include pricing_comparison for price positioning
– Add market_trends for dynamic positioning
DEFENSIBILITY FRAMEWORK:
– Time to replicate: weeks to years
– Resource requirements: minimal to extreme
– Network effects: none to strong compounding
– Overall score determines moat classification
"""
)
# =========================================================
# END RECIPE-ID: RCP-004-001-005-COMPETITIVE-EDGE-v2.00a
# =========================================================

Similar Posts

Leave a Reply