Brand Statement Analysis — Workflow Architecture

Six parallel maenifold workflows analyzed the brand statement candidates through structured methodologies.

Workflow Diagram

Completion Order

Lateral (fastest) → Six Hats → CRTA → Strategic → Design → Socratic (deepest — 6 sequential thinking sessions, ~25 thoughts)

Unique Contributions by Workflow

Workflow	Unique Contribution
Six Thinking Hats	"Free → Open" fix; surface-specific messaging architecture
Strategic Thinking	Porter's Five Forces validation; "category creation" confirmation; 3-5yr durability test
Lateral Thinking	Category error diagnosis (noun vs verb); jukebox metaphor; "compete against headcount not SaaS"
CRTA	"Brand statement shouldn't create urgency"; compounding as authentic urgency lever
Design Thinking	6-persona empathy map; 12/30 → 26/30 scoring; "design from edges inward"
Socratic Dialogue	2 fatal flaws; "brand is inverted"; compounding as center concept; cold start problem

Unanimous Findings (6/6 agents)

1. "Free" is wrong. Fix: "Open"
2. "Yours" is the strongest word. Keep it.
3. Current statement vastly outperforms "Never lose context."
4. Need surface/audience-specific messaging.

Recommended Brand Statement

Domain expertise that compounds. Open. Local. Yours.

Supporting (Developer Layer):

Seed the graph. Keep the experts. Watch it compound.

Memory URIs

• Synthesis: memory://strategy/brand-analysis/brand-analysis-synthesis-six-workflow-crossanalysis
• Six Thinking Hats: memory://strategy/brand-analysis/six-thinking-hats-brand-analysis-results
• Strategic Thinking: memory://strategy/brand-analysis/strategic-thinking-results-brand-analysis
• CRTA: memory://strategy/brand-analysis/crta-results-brand-statement-urgency-analysis
• Lateral Thinking: memory://strategy/brand-analysis/lateral-thinking-results
• Design Thinking: memory://strategy/brand-analysis/design-thinking-brand-analysis-results
• Socratic Dialogue: memory://strategy/brand-analysis/socratic-dialogue-results-brand-statement-stress-test