# Competitive Research Snapshot Template

Copy this to record a competitive research snapshot. The section order is a contract:
`competitive-intel-watch` diffs future runs against this document, and `battle-card-builder`
consumes it as an evidence base. Do not reorder or rename sections.

Label every claim **Fact** (cited, verifiable), **Inference** (reasoned from facts, basis shown), or
**Assumption** (unverified, needs validation). Three or four competitors, not eight — depth on the
players who matter beats coverage of players who don't.

## Template

```markdown
# Competitive Research Snapshot

## 1. Scope
**Company/product:** [yours — the perspective this snapshot is written from]
**Category:** [in buyer language]
**Decision supported:** [positioning / roadmap bet / deal support / board prep — determines what "just enough" means]
**Competitors analyzed:** [3, max 4 — each chosen for a stated reason]
**As-of date:** [YYYY-MM-DD — the watch diffs against this]

## 2. Competitor Snapshots
_Max 5 bullets per competitor. Their marketing site is a Fact about what they CLAIM;
whether it works is review-site territory or a labeled Inference._

### Competitor: [Name]
- **Positioning:** [their words, quoted or close — label + URL]
- **Relevant capability:** [the one that matters for the decision in Scope — label + URL]
- **Likely strength:** [with independent evidence where possible — label + URL]
- **Likely weakness:** [label + basis; "Likely" is in the heading for a reason]
- **Key source URL:** [the page you'd send a skeptic to]

## 3. Quick Comparison
| Dimension | [Your product] | [Comp 1] | [Comp 2] | [Comp 3] |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Target customer | | | | |
| Core use case | | | | |
| Main strength | | | | |
| Main weakness | | | | |
| Evidence quality | | | | |

_The Evidence quality row exists so a weak column can't masquerade as a strong one — rate it
honestly (high / medium / low) and let the So What section respect the rating._

## 4. So What?
- **Product strategy implications:** [exactly 3 — label, confidence, URL where relevant]
- **Competitive risks:** [exactly 2]
- **Product opportunities:** [exactly 2]
- **Assumptions to validate:** [exactly 3]
```

## Quality checks before you call it done

- Every section serves the decision named in Scope — anything else is a market report, not a snapshot
- No competitor claim from their own marketing is labeled as more than a Fact *about the claim*
- The Evidence quality row is filled in, and low-rated columns don't drive So What conclusions
- The As-of date is present — `competitive-intel-watch` needs it to diff