Step 1
The generic-language dictionary is published in the method code and is directional.
Public tool method · Version 1.0.0
Positioning Sharpness
Use this method when you need to answer: Can the position survive competitor substitution and predictable pressure? It turns the evidence you supply into a Positioning redline and pressure-test cards by applying explicit, versioned decision rules. The result is not a benchmark or certification. It shows the strongest evidence, riskiest input, next action, owner, and review date so another reader can inspect and challenge the decision.
Last material review 2026-08-08 · Next review 2027-02-04
Question answered
Can the position survive competitor substitution and predictable pressure?
The swap test redlines transparent generic phrases and competitor interchangeability; pressure mode records a response, proof, failure condition, and owner; the quotability test scores whether a stranger can restate each claim; the common enemy audit scores whether brand and customers share a verified enemy.
Step 2
A competitor swap without differentiating proof produces Interchangeable.
Step 3
A pressure response without proof or ownership remains Exposed.
Step 4
A response, proof, and owner together produce Defended.
Step 5
A quotability claim is graded on one-problem focus, standalone clarity, a named mechanism, and jargon load.
Step 6
A common enemy score of 8 to 12 reads Shared Enemy, 13 to 22 Assumed Enemy, and 23 or higher Founder Grudge; lower is healthier.
Assumptions and limits
- A defended card remains a hypothesis until tested in a real buyer conversation.
Usefulness hypothesis
Visible redlines and pressure cards improve positioning repair decisions.
Primary metric: Subtraction-brief or pressure-card interaction
Worked example and modes
The same method, preserved entry intent.
- Claim
- Petrichor turns contested strategic assumptions into evidence-backed decisions
- Company
- Petrichor
- Competitor
- Northstar
- Buyer
- CMO
- Proof
- Every engagement leaves a versioned decision artifact with owner, evidence status, and review date
Positioning SharpnessPositioning Under PressureQuotability GraderCommon Enemy Audit
Distribution package
Use, embed, and share the instrument.
Blank CSV template90-second demonstrationThree share treatmentsPlain-language answer
Embed with canonical attribution
<iframe src="https://petrichorgrowth.com/tools/positioning-sharpness/embed.html" title="Positioning Sharpness" loading="lazy" width="100%" height="900"></iframe>
<p>Source: <a href="https://petrichorgrowth.com/tools/positioning-sharpness">Positioning Sharpness by Petrichor</a></p>Ownership and change control
Who keeps the result defensible?
Product
Petrichor product
Method
Petrichor strategy
Evidence
Petrichor research
Privacy
Petrichor operations
Security
Petrichor web platform
Distribution
Petrichor growth
Support
Petrichor client experience
A material method change requires a reason, impact note, fixture rerun, semantic-version increment, and public entry in the method change log.
Related decision methods
Continue through the evidence chain.
Pricing Authority
Quantify discount leakage and define defensible pricing guardrails.
Reality Audit
Identify which strategic assumptions require evidence, testing, or retirement.
Relevancy Audit
Identify where positioning has drifted from present market priorities.
Related plain-language answers
Pricing Authority answerReality Audit answerRelevancy Audit answer
Method questions
What another reader should know.
What does the Positioning Sharpness method produce?
A versioned Positioning redline and pressure-test cards with visible reasoning, evidence status, next action, ownership, and review date.
What inputs does Positioning Sharpness require?
Only the structured decision evidence named by the instrument. Missing or estimated inputs remain visible in the result.
Does the method use AI or a cross-customer benchmark?
No. It applies deterministic rules to the user's inputs and does not compare one customer with another.
When is the method reviewed or changed?
The current method is reviewed at least every 180 days. Material changes require new fixtures, a version increment, and a public change note.
When should the artifact move into facilitated work?
When the unresolved decision requires team challenge, evidence reconciliation, dissent, ownership, and an organizational commitment.