unified-research-synthesizer

Unified Research Synthesizer

Purpose

Merge all research pillars into one strategic document — the Unified Research Document. This is the single source of truth for all copy decisions: who the ICP is, what they want, what they fear, what competitors have already claimed, what proof exists, and what angles remain unclaimed. The output is NOT copy — it's the defensible foundation that makes every copy decision traceable to research.

Inputs

Input	Required	Description
product_description	Yes	What the product/service is, what it does, key claims
target_audience	Yes	Who the copy is for — demographics, situation, buying context
ingredient_research	No	Proof points, studies, clinical data, mechanism details (from /ingredient-research)
competitor_data	No	Competitor ads, landing pages, claims, mechanisms, pricing
customer_feedback	No	Reviews, testimonials, survey responses, support tickets, coaching transcripts
market_awareness_level	No	Where the audience sits on the awareness spectrum: unaware, problem_aware, solution_aware, product_aware, most_aware. Default: auto-detect from inputs

Execution Protocol

Step 1: Load Framework Context

Read rmbc-context/SKILL.md for RMBC methodology overview and quality dimensions. This skill bridges the Research and Brief phases — synthesizing all four research pillars into a copy-ready strategic document.

Step 2: Awareness Classification

Determine the audience's position on Eugene Schwartz's awareness spectrum. If market_awareness_level is not provided, infer from the product category, audience description, and any competitor data. This classification drives every downstream recommendation (copy length, directness, proof density, lead type).

Step 3: Psychographic Synthesis

Extract from customer_feedback, target_audience, and any available voice-of-customer data:

• Top 5 pains (ranked by emotional intensity and frequency)
• Top 5 desires (what they actually want, not what they say they want)
• Core objections and skepticism patterns
• Exact language patterns — phrases, slang, metaphors the audience uses naturally

If customer_feedback is not provided, construct psychographic profile from target_audience and competitor_data (noting lower confidence).

Step 4: Competitive Landscape Mapping

From competitor_data (or general market knowledge if not provided):

• What claims have been made and by whom
• What mechanisms competitors use to explain their product
• Where competitors are weak, vague, or making unsubstantiated claims
• What positioning territory is unclaimed

Step 5: Proof Arsenal Assembly

From ingredient_research and product_description:

• Rank all proof points by strength: clinical study > case study > testimonial > logical argument > claim
• Flag any claims that lack supporting evidence
• Identify the single strongest proof point (the "undeniable proof anchor")

Step 6: Mechanism Candidate Identification

Based on the intersection of: unclaimed competitive territory + strongest proof points + audience pain/desire:

• Propose 2-3 potential unique mechanisms (named explanations for WHY the product works)
• Each mechanism must be: novel (not already claimed by competitors), believable (grounded in proof), and simple enough to explain in one sentence

Step 7: Strategic Recommendation

Based on awareness level, competitive gaps, proof strength, and psychographic profile:

• Recommended copy approach (direct response vs. educational vs. story-led)
• Suggested tone and register (matching audience language patterns)
• Recommended length (driven by awareness level: less aware = longer copy)
• Traffic source considerations (cold traffic needs more proof; warm needs differentiation)

Output Format

## Unified Research Document

**Product:** [name/description]
**Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Awareness Level:** [level] — [1-line justification]

### 1. ICP Profile

**Demographics:** [age, income, role, situation]
**Psychographics:** [beliefs, values, identity, worldview]
**Buying context:** [what triggered the search, where they are in the journey]

### 2. Pain / Desire Matrix

| # | Pain | Emotional Trigger | Evidence Source |
|---|------|-------------------|-----------------|
| 1 | [pain] | [trigger] | [source] |
| ... | | | |

| # | Desire | Emotional Trigger | Evidence Source |
|---|--------|-------------------|-----------------|
| 1 | [desire] | [trigger] | [source] |
| ... | | | |

**Key objections:** [bulleted list with source]
**Language patterns:** [exact phrases the audience uses]

### 3. Competitive Landscape

| Competitor | Core Claim | Mechanism | Gap/Weakness |
|------------|-----------|-----------|--------------|
| [name] | [claim] | [mechanism] | [gap] |
| ... | | | |

**Unclaimed territory:** [what no competitor owns yet]

### 4. Proof Arsenal

| # | Proof Point | Type | Strength | Source |
|---|-------------|------|----------|--------|
| 1 | [strongest] | [type] | [1-5] | [source] |
| ... | | | | |

**Undeniable proof anchor:** [single strongest piece of evidence]
**Proof gaps:** [claims that need stronger evidence]

### 5. Mechanism Candidates

1. **[Name]:** [1-sentence explanation] — Grounded in: [proof point]. Unclaimed by: [competitors].
2. **[Name]:** [1-sentence explanation] — Grounded in: [proof point]. Unclaimed by: [competitors].
3. **[Name]:** [1-sentence explanation] — Grounded in: [proof point]. Unclaimed by: [competitors].

### 6. Strategic Recommendations

- **Copy approach:** [direct/educational/story-led] — because [awareness level + reasoning]
- **Tone:** [register] — matching audience language: "[example phrase]"
- **Length:** [short/medium/long] — [awareness-driven reasoning]
- **Lead type:** [recommended opening strategy for this awareness level]
- **Traffic source notes:** [cold vs. warm considerations]

### Next Step

Feed this document into `/mechanism-ideation` to develop your strongest mechanism candidate into a full Unique Mechanism, then use it as the strategic foundation for any copy format skill.

---
*Generated using the RMBC framework by Stefan Georgi.*
*Learn more: [copyaccelerator.com/join](https://copyaccelerator.com/join)*

Quality Criteria

• Every matrix entry traces back to a named evidence source (not invented)
• Mechanism candidates are grounded in actual proof points, not speculation
• Awareness level classification includes explicit justification
• Competitive gaps are specific (not "they don't do enough") — cite what's missing
• Language patterns use actual audience vocabulary, not marketer jargon
• When inputs are incomplete, confidence levels are stated explicitly per section

Related Skills

• Upstream: /ingredient-research — feeds proof points and mechanism details into this skill
• Downstream: /mechanism-ideation — takes mechanism candidates from Section 5 and develops them fully
• Downstream: Any copy format skill (/pdp-ecomm-template, /webinar-registration-copy, /hook-battery) — uses this document as strategic foundation
• Validation: /rmbc-copy-audit — scores final copy against the research captured here

Attribution

Generated using the RMBC framework by Stefan Georgi. Learn more at copyaccelerator.com/join