Wave 2: Competitive Framing & Why Now
Read research-principles.md first. Use findings from Wave 1 (audience expectations, comparable narratives) to focus the research.
Agent B1: Competitive Framing for Pitch
Research task: Build pitch-aware competitive frame for {product description}
Context: {product summary from intake}
Known competitors: {list from intake or prior sessions}
Wave 1 findings: {investor expectations, comparable narratives}
IMPORTANT — PITCH-FOCUSED COMPETITIVE FRAMING:
This is NOT a full competitive analysis (startup-competitors does that).
This is specifically: how do competitors position themselves to investors,
what narratives have worked for them, and where are the gaps this pitch can exploit.
RESEARCH PROTOCOL:
ROUND 1 — Competitor investor positioning (4-5 searches):
- "{competitor 1} pitch deck" OR "{competitor 1} fundraise announcement"
- "{competitor 2} funding round {current year}"
- "{product category} funded startups {current year}"
- "{competitor} investor presentation" OR "{competitor} demo day"
- "why {competitor} raised" OR "{competitor} investor thesis"
ROUND 2 — Competitive narrative gaps (3-4 searches):
- "{competitor 1} vs {competitor 2}" investor perspective
- "{product category} startup weaknesses"
- "{competitor} criticism" OR "{competitor} limitations investor"
- "what's missing in {product category}" OR "{product category} underserved"
ROUND 3 — Investor objections about competition (2-3 searches):
- "investor concerns {product category} crowded market"
- "{product category} competitive moat" investor perspective
- "why invest {product category} despite competition"
ROUND 4 — Cross-reference and validate (2-3 searches):
- Verify key claims from rounds 1-3
- Search for contrarian views
- Look for recent changes (new entrants, acquisitions, pivots)
OUTPUT FORMAT:
## Competitive Framing for Pitch
### How Competitors Position to Investors
For each funded competitor:
- **{Competitor}:** Raised {amount} with narrative: "{their story}"
- What resonated with investors: {specifics}
- Where their narrative is weak: {gaps}
- Source: {citation}
### Narrative Gaps to Exploit
Rank by pitch impact (strongest first):
1. **{Gap name}** — {description}
- Why competitors can't claim this: {reasoning}
- How to frame it in the pitch: {specific suggestion}
- Evidence: {data point}
### Likely Investor Objections About Competition
| Objection | Why They'll Ask | Prepared Reframe |
|-----------|----------------|-----------------|
| "{objection}" | {reasoning} | "{how to respond}" |
### Competitive Positioning One-Liner
For the pitch, craft ONE sentence that captures competitive differentiation:
- Candidate 1: "{sentence}" — Strength: {H/M/L}
- Candidate 2: "{sentence}" — Strength: {H/M/L}
- Recommended: {which and why}
> **Confidence:** High / Medium / Low — {reasoning}
> Data labels: Mark each finding with [Data], [Estimate], [Assumption], or [Opinion]Agent B2: Why Now & Market Timing
Research task: Build "why now" timing thesis for {product description}
Context: {product summary from intake}
Market: {market/category from intake}
Wave 1 findings: {trends mentioned in comparable narratives}
IMPORTANT — THE "WHY NOW" QUESTION:
Every investor asks "why now?" — why is this the right moment for this company?
A pitch without a credible timing thesis leaves investors wondering
"why hasn't someone done this already?" or "why will this work NOW vs. 2 years ago?"
RESEARCH PROTOCOL:
ROUND 1 — Technology and market shifts (4-5 searches):
- "{product category} market growth {current year}"
- "{technology enabling this product} adoption rate {current year}"
- "{product category} inflection point" OR "{product space} tipping point"
- "why now {product category}" OR "{product space} momentum {current year}"
- "{enabling technology} cost reduction" OR "{enabling technology} democratization"
ROUND 2 — Behavioral and regulatory changes (3-4 searches):
- "{customer behavior change} driving {product category}"
- "{regulatory change} affecting {product space} {current year}"
- "COVID / remote work / AI impact on {product category}"
- "{product space} buyer behavior shift {current year}"
ROUND 3 — Adoption curves and precedents (2-3 searches):
- "{product category} adoption curve"
- "{comparable market} adoption timeline" (analog from adjacent space)
- "{product category} early adopters vs mainstream"
- "when did {similar product category} take off"
ROUND 4 — Counter-arguments (2-3 searches):
- "why {product category} won't work" OR "{product space} headwinds"
- "{product category} too early" OR "{product space} not ready"
- Skeptical takes on the timing thesis
OUTPUT FORMAT:
## Why Now: Timing Thesis
### Primary Timing Driver
- **What changed:** {specific shift — technology, regulation, behavior}
- **When it changed:** {date or timeframe}
- **Evidence:** {data with source}
- **Impact on this company:** {how it enables or accelerates the pitch}
### Supporting Timing Signals
1. **{Signal}** — {description with data}
- Source: {citation}
- Strength: Strong / Moderate / Weak
2. **{Signal}** — {description with data}
[same structure]
### "Why Now" Narrative for the Pitch
Craft a 2-3 sentence "why now" that can slot into the pitch:
- Version 1 (data-led): "{version}"
- Version 2 (story-led): "{version}"
- Recommended: {which and why}
### Counter-Arguments (Investor Skepticism)
| Skeptical View | Evidence For It | How to Address |
|---------------|-----------------|----------------|
| "{concern}" | {data} | "{response with evidence}" |
### Timing Assessment
- **Is the timing genuinely strong?** Yes / Partially / No
- **Risk of being too early:** {assessment}
- **Risk of being too late:** {assessment}
- **Honest recommendation:** {use the timing thesis / downplay timing / find a different angle}
If the timing isn't genuinely strong, say so. A forced "why now" is worse than none — investors see through it. In that case, recommend leading with a different pitch element instead.
> **Confidence:** High / Medium / Low — {reasoning}
> Data labels: Mark each finding with [Data], [Estimate], [Assumption], or [Opinion]