The source-tagged assumptions were confirmed and the answers are now preserved in the product-path working sidecar.
AFPS Tracker Coverage Checkpoint
Checkpoint Status
This page completed Stage 0. It is not a framework-selection page and does not approve canonical positioning research.
The differentiator answer says to research the wedge closely. That is enough to avoid another open interview round, but not enough to claim the final position.
Established Context
Target Segment
Positioning should speak first to current AFPS power users who juggle many projects, context-switch across sessions, pick up mid-research work, and need finer control and insight into workflow state over multiple days.
Actual Alternatives
The closest named alternative from Round 1 is `$afps-status`: useful for audit and next-step routing, but terminal-bound, request-driven, and not a persistent state tracker. Source-native files, `alignment/index.html`, `research/.progress.yaml`, generic PM tools, research repositories, and AI agents remain adjacent alternatives from the existing research.
Value Wedge To Research
The likely wedge remains source-faithful AFPS workflow-state visibility across branch tree, pipeline stage, approval state, and evidence links without duplicating state into a manual board. Round 1 explicitly asks the positioning work to research this closely before making a confident claim.
Mode And Category
Mode stays market positioning: the product has strong concept, ICP, competitive, and journey artifacts, but no post-launch customer evidence. The selected category language is "AFPS workflow-state tracker."
It is very difficult context switching between different projects and hard to keep track of what is being worked on with proper context when switching from agent to agent session and keeping up with the speed of AI.
Coverage Register
Every required interview area is either covered by a Round 1 answer or intentionally marked as a research target for the next stage.
| Interview Area | Coverage State | Established Or Waived Input | Decision Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Target segment | Covered | Current AFPS power users and multi-day AFPS operators struggling with focus, context switching, and handoff into mid-research work. | Framework selection should center source-native workflow-state pain rather than broad PM or research repository audiences. |
| Actual alternatives | Covered | `$afps-status` was added as a direct internal alternative; existing research already covers native repo files, generic PM tools, research repositories, product discovery tools, and AI agents. | Positioning should compare against both internal AFPS status/audit behavior and external adjacent tools. |
| Value wedge and differentiator | Research target | The user did not settle the differentiator in Round 1 and explicitly asked to research it closely. | The next framework selection should include approaches that test the job, competitive factors, and category narrative instead of assuming one final wedge. |
| Market-vs-product mode | Covered | Mode override selected `stay-market-mode`; no customer-feedback artifact with post-launch evidence exists. | Use market-positioning frameworks, not a customer-grounded post-launch product-positioning shortcut. |
| Category frame | Covered | Selected category language: AFPS workflow-state tracker. | Framework selection can treat the category as provisional language to validate, not a final category creation claim. |
| Customer language | Covered | Round 1 supplied phrasing around context switching, project switching, agent-to-agent sessions, and keeping up with AI speed. | Positioning research should reuse this language and test it against ICP, journey, and competitive evidence. |
Known Caveats
Not A Demand Proof
Round 1 confirms direction and language, but direct AFPS user volume and willingness to pay are still unproven in the canonical research.
Internal Alternative Added
`$afps-status` should be treated as a meaningful alternative for routing and audit, but its read-mostly terminal behavior does not replace a durable workflow-state surface.
Research Boundary
The positioning phase should remain scoped to AFPS Tracker, not `exec-loop-tracker`, development execution tracking, or generic PM replacement.
Coverage Gate
Confirm Stage 0 Coverage
Is the established context above complete enough for the parent `$positioning research/afps-tracker` loop to write the interrogation handoff and build the framework-selection page next?
Compile Responses
Compile the checkpoint YAML after answering the coverage gate. The next agent consumes the YAML through the parent positioning command and decides whether to write the interrogation handoff or continue interrogation.