message-architecture

Skill: Message Architecture

Constructs a complete, hierarchical messaging system — from master narrative to audience-specific messages, reasons to believe, proof points, and contextual adaptations. Includes a built-in Slop Guard, an Insight-to-Message Bridge, and a Brand Equity Check before any new architecture is built.

Critical Warning — Slop Guard

Before writing any message, Claude must not use the following words or phrases anywhere in the output:

Universal slop (forbidden): leverage, synergy, seamlessly, game-changer, robust, holistic, cutting-edge, transformative, innovative, impactful, empower, disruptive, best-in-class, solution (as standalone adjective), seamless, ecosystem (unless technical)

Comms-specific slop (forbidden): 360° (say "fully integrated" or specify channels), "storytelling" without format/channel, "resonates" without specifying audience, "authentic" as a brand claim, "transparent" without specific proof

Self-check (apply before outputting any message): Read every message aloud. If any of the above words appear, rewrite. If removing them makes the message empty, the message had no content — start again.

---

Step 0: Brand Equity Audit

Before constructing a new architecture, protect what already works.

BRAND EQUITY AUDIT

What do audiences already associate positively with this brand?
[List 3–5 associations — these are sacred, do not erase]

What does the brand's most loyal audience value most?
[The emotional job the brand does for them — not the functional one]

What change has triggered this brief?
[Relaunch / new product / new audience / competitive pressure / crisis recovery]

Risk: does the requested architecture change contradict or erase existing equity?
[YES → flag before proceeding and present the tension to the client]
[NO → proceed to Step 1]

---

Step 1: Brand Foundation

Before writing messages, anchor to three fixed points:

Brand Truth — What is unambiguously true about this brand? Proven, not aspirational. (1 sentence, no hyperbole)

Brand Promise — What does the brand commit to deliver? Future-facing but grounded in truth. (1 sentence)

Brand Idea — The single thought that unifies all expressions. Not a tagline. A conceptual anchor. (5 words max)

---

Step 2: The Insight-to-Message Bridge

This step prevents the most common failure: an excellent insight that generates generic messages.

INSIGHT → MESSAGE BRIDGE

The insight (from brief-analyzer or audience-intelligence):
"[Audience] want [X] but [tension/contradiction]"

Step 2a: What does this insight FORBID the brand from saying?
[Messages that ignore this tension, that pretend it doesn't exist]
→ List 3 things we must NOT say

Step 2b: What does this insight DEMAND the brand acknowledge?
[The uncomfortable truth the audience needs to hear named]
→ 1 sentence — say the thing the audience is thinking but no brand says

Step 2c: What does this insight allow the brand to OWN?
[The specific territory that is now available because we've named the truth]
→ The conceptual space for the master message

Step 2d: Draft the Master Message
[Derived from 2c, tested against 2a]
Test: Does this message only work because we've named the insight?
If yes → the message is ownable. If no → it's generic. Rewrite.

---

Step 3: Master Narrative (max 150 words)

Structure — Five acts:

THE WORLD AS IT IS:
[The tension, problem, or contradiction in the world that the brand addresses]

THE BRAND'S BELIEF:
[What the brand fundamentally believes about this problem]

THE BRAND'S ROLE:
[The distinct role the brand plays — the change it enables]

THE PROOF:
[One concrete, specific achievement that makes this credible — not a claim, an act]

THE INVITATION:
[What the brand asks the audience to feel, think, or do]

Word budget: 150 words maximum. Every word earns its place. Read aloud — if it sounds like a corporate website, rewrite.

---

Step 4: Message Pillars (3–5)

Each pillar is a recurring theme the brand owns in public conversation. Name pillars conceptually, not functionally:

• ✗ "Quality" (generic, unprovable, every competitor claims it)
• ✓ "Uncompromising craft" (specific, ownable, generates stories)
• ✓ "The right to understand" (conceptual, rooted in audience insight)

For each pillar:

Field	Content
Pillar name	[Conceptual label — max 4 words]
Core claim	[1 sentence — what we're saying]
Audience relevance	[Why this audience specifically cares]
RTB 1	[Specific proof point with data or example]
RTB 2	[Specific proof point]
RTB 3	[Specific proof point]
Story ideas	[3 content/PR story ideas that activate this pillar]
Distinctiveness test	[Could a competitor say this? If yes, rewrite]

---

Step 5: Audience Adaptations

Audience	Primary pillar	Secondary pillar	Tone adjustment	What to avoid
[Segment 1]
[Segment 2]
Media / Press
Internal

Key principle: Adaptation ≠ dilution. Each version must be as strong as the original. If adapting for a second audience weakens the message, the master architecture needs re-examination — not the adaptation.

---

Step 6: Context Adaptations

Context	Principle	Adjustment
Media / PR	Lead with newsworthiness	Journalist needs a story, not a claim — reframe every pillar as a story angle
Social media	Lead with tension	Features bore, values engage, tension converts
Advertising	Lead with emotion	The message is felt before understood
B2B executive	Lead with impact and evidence	ROI framing, proof-first
Internal comms	Lead with purpose	Mission and belonging before metrics
Crisis	Lead with acknowledgement + action	Explanation without accountability destroys trust

---

Step 7: Message Test Battery

Apply to every message before finalising:

Core tests:

Test	Question	Pass
True	Can we prove it? Do we have RTBs?	Yes
Ownable	Could a competitor say exactly this?	No
Insight-anchored	Does this only work because we named the insight?	Yes
Audience-relevant	Would this audience care?	Yes
Differentiating	Does it distinguish us?	Yes
Timely	Does it resonate with this cultural moment?	Yes
Credible	Would a sceptic accept it?	Yes
Generative	Can it produce many stories over time?	Yes

Behavioral science layer:

Test	Question	Framework
System 1 test	What does this message FEEL like in 3 seconds?	Kahneman
Cognitive ease	Is this legible without effort? Their words, not ours?	Kahneman
Framing test	Gain or loss frame — right for this audience and objective?	Kahneman
Costly signal test	Is there a costly, hard-to-fake behaviour behind this claim?	Sutherland
Real Why test	Is the insight the actual driver, not a rationalisation?	Sutherland
CEP test	Is this message linked to a Category Entry Point?	Sharp
Distinctive asset test	Does this reinforce our brand codes — or could a competitor run it?	Sharp

Slop final check: Re-read full output. Remove any word from the Slop Guard list. If removal creates emptiness, the message had no content. Rewrite.

---

Output

Save to data/1-Projets/clients/[client]/message-architecture.md

Structure:

1. Brand Equity Audit — what must not change
2. Brand Foundation — Truth, Promise, Idea
3. Insight-to-Message Bridge — the strategic link
4. Master Narrative — 5-part structure, max 150 words
5. Message Pillars — 3–5 with RTBs, story ideas, distinctiveness test
6. Audience Adaptations — matrix by segment
7. Context Adaptations — by channel and situation
8. Vocabulary Charter — Green list + Red list + Slop Guard
9. Test Battery Results — pass/fail for each message

---

Integration Points

• Receives from: brief-analyzer, audience-intelligence (insight), brand-voice-auditor (personality)
• Feeds into: campaign-strategy, brand-voice-auditor, all content production
• Triggered by: /comms:strategy, /comms:brief, /comms:campaign