Slant · Brand Size-Up

The system map

Two systems, one seam, one direction of travel. The library holds the discipline and knows nothing about your brand. The engine knows your brand and borrows the discipline. What crosses between them — and what is forbidden from crossing — is the part worth reading first.

Automated, no human in the step Human judgment required Hard gate — failure halts the run Artefact or store
01 The methodology library Versioned, linted, regression-tested. Knows nothing about any particular brand. SELF-MAINTAINING SOURCE LAYER ~90 primary sources ingested — books, papers, courses, case studies + Slant's own project archives GATED INGEST plan → test batch → verify → scale Deterministic post-checks: links resolve, sources resolve, raw layer untouched. Two-agent verification. THE CORPUS · 270 PAGES Concepts77 Methods52 Strategy15 Entities (who said it)97 Synthesis (contradictions)29 OPERATING DISCIPLINE Every page states a confidence band and its sources. Pages are superseded, never deleted. Contradictions get a page, not a shrug. FIVE SCHEDULED ROUTINES — WHAT RUNS, HOW OFTEN, AND WHAT IT IS ALLOWED TO CHANGE LINT 1st & 15th 13 hygiene checks Broken links, orphans, stale confidence, unresolved contradictions, index drift, client-name scan. READ & REPORT SCOUT weekly Sources new material Searches against current gaps and proposes what to read next. Structurally incapable of ingesting anything. PROPOSE ONLY EVAL monthly 67 gold questions A regression test for a knowledge base. Re-run after every ingest. A falling pass rate means an ingest broke something. READ & REPORT INGEST QUEUE daily Drains the backlog One pre-approved item per run. Added only after the lint caught approved work sitting undone. THE ONLY ONE THAT WRITES BACKLOG quarterly Re-aims the queue Asks what the library should learn next, given what it now knows and where it keeps coming up short. RECOMMEND ONLY THE SEAM · ONE FILE, ONE DIRECTION The diagnostic lens bank 59 diagnostic questions mapped to the six dimensions · 35+ named lenses, each reduced to the one question it lets you ask · ~102 KB, rebuilt from diagnostic-tagged canon · the lint verifies both copies byte-for-byte. DIAGNOSTIC ONLY — NEVER THE TREATMENT Naming the problem ships. Fixing it is a different engagement. HONEST PROPORTION 28% of the engine's loaded instruction text is library- derived. The other 72% is engine-native, built from real runs and what broke. RETURN PATH doctrine only — abstracted method, written brand-agnostically ✕ no brand data ✕ no client content ✕ no findings 02 The audit engine Knows your brand in detail. Borrows its vocabulary from upstairs; gets its discipline from being wrong before. WHAT IT READS Intake — 4 fields Company, site, name, email. The substantive context comes after. Outside-in reconnaissance Your actual site and copy, not a model's memory of it. Every social platform navigated directly. Forum and review mining against a hard floor. Per-SKU data where it exists. Where else the brand is encountered. EVIDENCE STANDARD Every claim carries a source tag recording how it was obtained. Inference is capped, never promoted. HOW IT SCORES — COMPUTE FIRST, NARRATE SECOND Six dimensions × 4–5 written criteria CLARITY CONSISTENCY DIFFERENTIATION RESONANCE AVAILABILITY CREDIBILITY EACH CRITERION IS SCORED AGAINST A WRITTEN ANCHOR 100 fully · 75 mostly · 50 partial · 25 weak · 0 absent …and tagged for what it rests on: VERIFIED INFERRED ABSENT Dimension = plain mean of its criteria, equal weight. No weighting knob — a knob is a place to hide a judgment. Confidence is derived from the tag mix, not graded by hand. BANDS LEAD · STRONG 70–100 · SOLID 50–69 · EMERGING 0–49 WHO YOU GET COMPARED TO Three sets, three selection rules. Every comparison declares its lens. 1 · Shelf Set Selected by revealed preference — whoever pays to categorise you. 2 · Size & Structure Peers Revenue, ownership, channel, scale. The guard against unfair benchmarks. 3 · Same-Play Scan Anyone running your move, any size. Not-yet-threats included on purpose. An unlabelled comparison is a hard fail at the critique gate. 03 The gate stack Nine checks between "the analysis is finished" and "the deck is right." No retries around, no warnings, no ship-with-caveats. 01 Assumption audit Every load-bearing assumption surfaced and rated. HUMAN WALKTHROUGH keep · kill · reshape 02 Senior-strategist critique Six lenses turned adversarially on the engine's own conclusions. Amendments and kills applied before anything advances. 03 Fact-check Every claim traced to a primary source: verified, unverifiable, or wrong. A single false claim cannot ship. 04 AI-ism audit + empathy sweep Generated-sounding prose fails. So does language that punches down — a diagnosis delivered with contempt is a worse diagnosis. 05 Asset acquisition Logos and photography fetched and placed. A text-only deck is a failure, not a stylistic choice. 06 Image semantic verification A vision pass actually looks at each candidate. A machine that never looked at the picture cannot know it's wrong. 07 Visual build gate Enforced in code. Throws on a missing wordmark, on an unsourced attributed quote, and on any slide that had to shrink to fit. 08 Claim–source–scope trace Run against the rendered deck, because rewriting a line to fit a slide can quietly break the source beneath it. 09 Regulatory sweep Two-directional, primary sources only: catches recommending a violation, and inventing a rule that doesn't exist. HALT → FIX THE CAUSE → REGENERATE → RE-RUN THE ARTEFACT 22 slides + source appendix HTML → PDF, typefaces embedded HUMAN — LOAD-BEARING Final read before anything leaves Findings have been overruled here on every run DELIVERED Two business days Compute time is ~30–45 minutes THE GAP IS THE POINT The difference between those two numbers is a person reading it.

Inside the engine — the long-form walk through every part of this map.  ·  How it works — the shorter version.  ·  The Brand Size-Up — price, deliverable, turnaround.

Every count, threshold and rule shown here is drawn from the system's own specifications, logs and run records.
Where a claim could have been stated more impressively than the evidence supports — the 28% figure, the firewall's one recorded breach, the reproducibility gap — it is stated at the evidence instead.