Analyse this public profile as if you were preparing for a meeting with the brand. Answer these
questions, in this order, with concrete examples of posts:

1. What does this brand say it is, and what does the profile show it is? Where do the two not
   match?
2. What formats does it use, how often, and which one visibly gets more response?
3. What subject does its audience actually comment on, beyond compliments?
4. Three things being left on the table. Concrete, not generic advice.
5. One thing it does well that I should not propose changing.

Do not use metrics you cannot see from outside. If you lack the data for an answer, write that you
lack it instead of estimating.

I am going to give you the transcript of a recorded session. Find five moments that stand on their
own, outside the context of the session.

For each one give me:
- the start and end minute
- the exact sentence that carries the idea
- which format it suits best (short, text post, carousel)
- the hook for the first line

Rules: a moment has to make sense to someone who did not watch the rest. Do not stitch together
parts from different points of the session. Do not improve the speaker's words: if the sentence
does not work as it is, pick another moment.

Look at the pieces I have planned for next month and answer four questions, in this order:

1. Which subjects repeat less than two weeks apart? Name them and suggest which one to change or
   push back.
2. Which pieces make a promise the body does not keep? Quote the sentence.
3. Which pieces have no clear goal (reach, conversation, conversion)? List them without inventing
   one for them.
4. Where is the format mix out of balance against what usually works in my data?

Do not rewrite anything. Point, with the reference of the piece, and end with the three changes
that make the most difference. If there is not enough data for question 4, say so.

I will give you a subject this brand has already published on several times.

First, list the angles it has been covered from, with the matching piece. Group by approach:
explainer, opinion, case study, common mistake, comparison, behind the scenes, data.

Then tell me which of those angles have not been used for this subject, and for each one write in
a line what the piece would say.

If every angle is exhausted, say so. Do not invent a new angle just to fill the list: a subject can
simply be done.

I will paste a negative public comment about the brand. Before writing anything, classify it: a
fair criticism, a misunderstanding, or provocation with no request in it.

Then write three possible replies:
1. Short, public, acknowledging and offering a concrete path
2. Short, public, correcting a wrong fact without sarcasm
3. No reply at all, with the reason why not replying is better

Rules: never "we're sorry you feel that way". No explanation longer than two sentences. Never
promise anything I have not confirmed is possible.

At the end, say which of the three you recommend and why.

Read this profile's comments and messages from the last month and answer three things:

1. Which questions repeat? Group them by subject and say how many times each appeared.
2. Which objections show up, even when they are not phrased as questions? (price, trust, timing,
   complexity, "not for me")
3. What words do these people use to describe what they need? Quote them exactly.

Do not count compliments or thank-yous. Do not suggest answers: just show me what is there, with
real examples. If an objection appears only once, say it appeared only once.

You have last month's data for a profile. Write the executive summary of a report for a client who
does not work in marketing.

Required structure, three paragraphs:
1. The most relevant thing that happened, with the number that proves it.
2. Why it happened, tied to concrete decisions we made.
3. What we will do next because of it.

Rules: no technical term without an explanation in the same sentence. No percentage without the
absolute value beside it. If a number went up because of a single post, say so. If any indicator
got worse, it belongs in the summary, not buried in the tables.

200 words maximum. Do not invent causes: if the data does not explain a change, write that it does
not.

I will give you an article. Turn it into a 7-card carousel.

Structure rules:
- card 1: a concrete promise, with the result the reader takes away
- card 2: the proof the promise holds (a number, an example, a contradiction)
- cards 3 to 6: one step each, in the order they are carried out
- card 7: what to do next

Text rules: 25 words maximum per card. No card may make sense out of its position. If you can
shuffle the middle cards without loss, it is not a carousel, it is a list, and you should tell me
that instead of continuing.