Target Segment
Positioning should speak first to AFPS power users and AI workflow operators who run alignment-first, prototype-second skills workflows in repo-local files.
Positioning Interrogation Round 1 - AFPS Tracker
This stage-zero page captures assumptions and open answers before positioning framework selection. It does not synthesize positioning, rank frameworks, create a run manifest, or write canonical positioning artifacts.
Scope Snapshot
The active invocation names `research/afps-tracker`, so the positioning loop is scoped to AFPS Tracker only. `exec-loop-tracker` remains a separate active path in `research/.progress.yaml` and is not part of this interrogation.
Available Prerequisites
Present: ICP, competitive analysis, journey map, idea brief, product-path progress manifest.
Absent: customer feedback, positioning run manifest, positioning framework intermediates, canonical positioning synthesis.
Allowed Output This Round
One durable interrogation page at interrogation/positioning-r1-afps-tracker.html. Answer YAML will later be stored at research/afps-tracker/_working/interrogation-positioning-r1.yaml when consumed by the parent orchestrator.
Blocked Until Answers
Framework selection, positioning research, working packets, run manifests, framework outputs, and canonical research/afps-tracker/positioning.md remain blocked until the interrogation confidence gate passes.
Evidence Readiness
This is scope evidence only. It shows what source categories are available for later positioning work after this interrogation loop is complete.
ICP and segment evidenceStrong - canonical artifact exists
Competitive alternatives evidenceStrong - canonical artifact exists
Journey and aha-moment evidenceStrong - canonical artifact exists
Real customer languageWeak - no customer-feedback artifact
| Source Category | Observed Artifact | Use In Later Positioning | Current Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| ICP | research/afps-tracker/icp.md |
Target segment, triggers, pains, alternatives, WTP caveats. | Direct AFPS-user interviews remain absent. |
| Competitive analysis | research/afps-tracker/competitive-analysis.md |
Alternative set, substitution pressure, market gaps. | No hands-on competitor trials or exhaustive AFPS-native scan. |
| Journey map | research/afps-tracker/journey-map.md |
Aha moment, lifecycle trigger, trust requirements. | No prototype session or measured reconstruction baseline. |
| Customer feedback | Not present. | Would ground product-positioning language if available. | Need user-supplied language or explicit waiver. |
Assumptions Manifest
Confirm, correct, or flag each assumption. Corrections and flags will seed the next interrogation round; confirmed assumptions are not final positioning claims.
Competitive Alternatives
The real comparison set includes manual repo navigation, research/.progress.yaml, alignment/index.html, ad hoc status files, generic PM/workspace tools, product discovery or research repositories, and AI agents or control planes.
Value Wedge
The product wedge is a passive, source-linked branch and pipeline map over canonical AFPS artifacts, with near-zero manual data entry and verifiable evidence links.
Detected Mode
The current loop should use market-positioning mode because there is no customer-feedback artifact with real customer evidence and no launched product usage evidence in the research path.
Category Frame
The current category frame is a workflow-state and branching-decision visualizer for an agentic research pipeline, not a generic PM tool or development execution tracker.
Customer Language
Candidate language centers on seeing every branch without opening several files, knowing why paths are active or parked, resuming without rediscovery, and preserving an evidence trail.
Open Questions
These answers shape the next interrogation round and later framework-selection page. Answer with corrections, examples, or explicit waivers when a question is not relevant.
Target Segment Priority
If positioning must choose one first audience, who should it address most directly?
Actual Alternatives
What does the target user actually compare this against when the pain appears, including the option to do nothing?
Differentiator And Value Wedge
Which differentiator should later positioning stress hardest, and what should it avoid overstating?
Category Language
What category phrase sounds most natural for this product right now?
Customer Phrasing
Supply any real or dogfooding language that should anchor later positioning. If none exists yet, say what language is only hypothesized.
Mode Override
The repo points to market-positioning mode. Should later positioning stay in market mode unless new customer evidence is supplied?
Coverage Targets
The confidence gate cannot pass until these areas are answered or explicitly waived. Round 1 starts the coverage; a later checkpoint will summarize the established answers before framework selection.
| Interview Area | Round 1 Input | Why It Matters |
|---|---|---|
| Target segment | Assumption plus target segment priority answer. | Determines whose job and alternatives the positioning speaks to. |
| Competitive alternatives | Assumption plus actual alternatives answer. | Prevents positioning against a market map the user does not actually weigh. |
| Value wedge and differentiator | Assumption plus differentiator answer. | Anchors the eventual proof claim without over-broad PM-tool framing. |
| Market vs product mode | Detected mode assumption plus mode override answer. | Controls which positioning frameworks are valid later. |
| Category frame | Assumption plus category-language answer. | Shapes whether this is framed as AFPS-native, repo-native, portfolio, or pipeline tooling. |
| Customer language | Assumption plus customer phrasing answer. | Separates real voice-of-customer language from hypothesized research language. |
Next gate: After you compile and paste this page's YAML into a fresh `$positioning research/afps-tracker` session, the parent orchestrator will write the answer sidecar, run the confidence gate, and either create a follow-up round or build a coverage checkpoint.
Compile Responses
Compile partial or complete YAML after answering assumptions and open questions. The next agent consumes the YAML through the parent positioning command; it does not invoke a child framework directly.
No YAML compiled yet.