VIP Milestone 6: Build Your Research and Comparison System
Gary WhittakerVIP Creator Development · Milestone 6
Build Your Research and Comparison System
The free Milestone 6 work gives you a complete research foundation. This VIP implementation turns that foundation into a repeatable system for stronger claims, clearer differentiation and documented decisions.
1. Audit the free research record
Score each category from 1 to 5.
| Category | 1 | 3 | 5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Question quality | General topic questions | Some decision connection | Every question affects a defined decision |
| Source fit | Convenient sources | Mixed suitability | Source type matches each claim |
| Evidence traceability | Links without notes | Partial records | Claim, support, date and limitation recorded |
| Audience evidence | Assumptions | Small sample | Repeated patterns and differences documented |
| Comparable analysis | Surface impressions | Several useful observations | Consistent dimensions and project implications |
| Decision usefulness | No change | Minor edits | Clear proceed, revise or hold logic |
2. Build the research architecture
Organize the project around six evidence lanes:
- Audience lane: direct language, needs, objections and behaviour
- Truth lane: facts, rules, dates, technical details and limitations
- Practice lane: demonstrations, workflows, case examples and direct experience
- Comparable lane: related projects, alternatives and audience expectations
- Risk lane: legal, ethical, safety, disclosure and platform concerns
- Decision lane: what each finding changes in the project
Assign every major research note to one lane. Notes that affect no decision may not belong in the active project record.
3. Weight evidence instead of counting sources
Ten weak repetitions are not automatically stronger than one direct authoritative source. Grade each item:
| Grade | Description | Appropriate use |
|---|---|---|
| A | Direct primary, official or highly authoritative evidence | Important factual claims and rules |
| B | Strong qualified analysis, direct demonstration or well-supported reporting | Interpretation and practical conclusions |
| C | Relevant audience pattern, creator observation or secondary explanation | Language, examples and hypothesis support |
| D | Single anecdote, unverified summary or unclear source | Lead for further research only |
Record both strength and relevance. A reliable source may still be irrelevant to your exact audience or project version.
4. Create the claim ledger
| Claim ID | Exact claim | Evidence grade | Source date | Limitation | Approved wording | Review date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C-01 | A–D |
Use the ledger for claims tied to rights, money, health, safety, platform policy, technical capability, performance or audience outcomes. It also supports future updates when facts change.
5. Run a contradiction review
Strong research does not hide disagreement. For every important contradiction, record:
- The competing claims
- The source and evidence level for each
- Whether they address the same context
- Possible reasons for the difference
- What the project can responsibly state
- What remains uncertain
| Question | Position A | Position B | Best current interpretation | Project wording |
|---|---|---|---|---|
6. Expand the comparable-project matrix
Review at least five projects through four layers.
Layer A — Strategy
Audience, problem, promise, message, creator role and business purpose.
Layer B — Product
Format, scope, sequence, depth, support, access model and completion experience.
Layer C — Trust
Evidence, credentials, examples, disclosures, boundaries and update practices.
Layer D — Market
Visibility, search language, promotion, community, price, reviews and alternatives.
| Dimension | Observed pattern | Audience expectation | Opportunity | Risk of copying | My decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
7. Identify three types of gaps
Unserved gap
A relevant need is not being addressed well.
Underserved gap
The need is addressed, but the available solutions are too broad, complex, expensive, outdated or poorly matched to the intended audience.
False gap
The apparent gap exists because demand is weak, the problem is low priority or another solution already works well enough.
Do not convert every difference into an opportunity. Test whether the difference matters to the audience.
8. Write the strategic difference statement
Use this structure:
Comparable projects commonly help [audience] through [dominant approach]. My project will focus on [useful difference] because the research indicates [audience need or project reason]. It will not claim [unsupported superiority or result].
Create three versions:
- Difference in audience
- Difference in method or experience
- Difference in scope, evidence or support
Select the one that provides the clearest audience value, not the most dramatic marketing line.
9. Apply Core Squared
Flame
Which findings strengthen or challenge the creator’s reason for building the project?
Rock
Which evidence, process or original contribution gives the project a reliable foundation?
Cycle
What research must be repeated before major updates, releases or claims?
House
Where will sources, comparisons, disclosures and update records be stored and presented?
Operator
Who decides when evidence is sufficient, language must be narrowed or expert input is required?
10. Connect the Core Paths
Find Your Sound
Compare creative references, production choices, emotional direction and audience expectations without copying protected expression.
Find Your Voice
Use audience language and source evidence to improve explanation, storytelling, lyrics, teaching and claims while preserving the creator’s own voice.
Find Your Brand
Translate the researched difference into site structure, product positioning, trust signals, disclosures, offers and clear next actions.
11. Research risk register
| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Evidence needed | Mitigation | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outdated platform information | Official current source | Display review date and update process | |||
| Unsupported audience result | Demonstration or audience evidence | Narrow claim | |||
| Overly close comparable influence | Independent development record | Change expression and document contribution | |||
| Professional-advice confusion | Qualified review where needed | Clear boundaries and referral |
12. Advanced AI research prompts
Source-fit audit
Review the supplied claim-and-source table. For each claim, assess whether the source type is appropriate, whether the source directly supports the wording and whether freshness matters. Do not verify claims from memory or invent missing sources.
Contradiction audit
Compare the supplied source notes. Identify genuine disagreement, differences in scope, date or audience, and claims that only appear contradictory. State what can be concluded and what remains uncertain.
Comparable-project audit
Using only the observations I provide, compare the projects across audience, promise, format, trust, access and experience. Separate observed facts from my interpretations. Flag any conclusion that is not supported by the notes.
Gap test
Evaluate the proposed market or audience gap against the supplied evidence. Classify it as unserved, underserved, false or still unproven. Explain what additional evidence would change the classification.
Originality boundary audit
Review my comparable-project notes and planned project decisions. Flag where I may be borrowing protected expression, distinctive structure, naming or branding too closely. Suggest strategic questions, not replacement creative content.
13. Complete the Strategic Research Brief
Project and current version:
Research window:
Priority decisions:
Evidence lanes used:
Highest-grade evidence:
Critical claims approved:
Claims narrowed or removed:
Main audience patterns:
Comparable-project patterns:
Unserved or underserved gap:
False-gap warning:
Strategic difference:
Contradictions and uncertainties:
Research risks:
Required disclosures or boundaries:
Future review triggers:
Final decision:
14. Proceed, revise or hold
Proceed
The important decisions have suitable evidence, the useful difference is clear, major risks are manageable and unresolved questions can be monitored.
Revise
The project remains worthwhile, but the audience, promise, claim language, scope, format or positioning must change.
Hold
A critical fact, professional issue, rights concern, audience assumption or false-gap risk must be resolved first.
