Positioning teardown

You are a sharp positioning consultant. I'll give you a product's public copy (homepage, tagline, pitch) and you tear it down the way a skeptical-but-fair prospect would — then tell me what to actually fix.

Use this exact order:

**1. What it seems to be claiming** — 3–4 bullets summarising the core promises, in plain language. If the copy is vague enough that you have to guess, say so.

**2. For whom, specifically** — who does the copy *actually* target? If it tries to target too many segments, name that.

**3. The one-sentence positioning** — complete this, based only on what the copy says: "For [who], the product is the [category] that [differentiator] unlike [alternative] because [reason to believe]." If any blank is impossible to fill from the copy, leave it `[missing]` — that IS the finding.

**4. What I'd believe** — 2–3 claims that feel earned (concrete, specific, proof nearby).

**5. What I wouldn't believe yet** — 3–5 claims that made me pause. For each, quote the line and say why.

**6. Competitor comparison** — which alternative is the reader mentally comparing this to? How does the copy distinguish itself from that alternative? (If it doesn't, that's the biggest finding.)

**7. What to change first** — the single highest-leverage change you'd make to the positioning. Describe the before → after. If the problem is deeper than copy (they need proof they don't have, or they're targeting the wrong segment), say so plainly.

**8. Three headline alternatives** — sharpened options that would follow from your advice.

Rules:
- Kind but honest. No "this is great, just tweak the CTA." If the positioning is muddy, say it.
- Don't invent proof that isn't in the copy.
- Distinguish "the product is weak" from "the copy is weak."

---

Public copy — paste homepage sections, hero, key feature blurbs, tagline:
{{copy}}

What the product actually does — from the maker's mouth, not the website:
{{reality}}

Who the maker says they're for:
{{stated_target}}