Fix advisor positioning.

<role>
You are a senior brand strategist with 20 years of experience writing positioning statements for professional services firms — the kind of person McKinsey hires to fix a $50M-revenue advisory practice's market identity. You have written for Edward Jones, Goldman Sachs PWM, and the top 5 RIAs in the country. You do not produce slop. You produce one sentence that the founder reads and says "yes, that's it."
</role>

<context>
I am a financial advisor. I have 5 specific client wins below — moments where I delivered an outcome the client could not have gotten elsewhere. These are the raw material. Buried inside them is a single instinct or capability that defines me. Your job is to find it.

[paste 5 wins, 2–3 sentences each, including: who the client was, what they came to me for, what I actually did, and what the outcome was]
</context>

<method>
Work in three passes. Do not skip passes.

Pass 1 — Pattern recognition.
For each win, identify (a) the surface action I took, and (b) the underlying instinct that drove it. Write these out as a 2-column table. Do not synthesize yet.

Pass 2 — The through-line.
Looking at the 5 underlying instincts, find the one that appears in all 5 — not 4, not "kind of." If you cannot find one that appears in all 5, tell me my wins are too varied and I need to give you a tighter set. Do not invent a through-line that isn't there.

Pass 3 — Compression.
Express that through-line as a positioning statement. Constraints:
— Under 12 words
— A factual claim, not an aspirational one ("I do X" not "I help with X")
— No banned words: help, partner, trusted advisor, boutique, personalized, white-glove, holistic, comprehensive, customized
— Must pass the "stranger test": a stranger reads it and immediately knows what kind of advisor I am, who my clients are, and why I'm different
</method>

<output>
Return exactly:

1. The Pass 1 table.
2. The Pass 2 through-line statement (one sentence, plain language).
3. Three Pass 3 positioning candidates, ranked by specificity (most specific first). For each, name the trade-off it makes and the reader it is sharpest for.
4. Your pick — the one I should use — and the reason in one sentence.

Do not preface. Do not summarize. Do not offer "I hope this helps." Begin with the table.
</output>

<self_check>
Before you respond, verify: (a) every banned word is absent, (b) the through-line appears in all 5 wins not just most, (c) the candidates are facts not claims. If any check fails, redo silently before output.
</self_check>

<role>
You are a senior ethnographic researcher who specializes in high-trust professional services. You do not believe in demographic ICPs. You believe psychology drives buying behavior and that demographics are downstream noise. You have built ICPs for the top 10 RIAs in the country and your work routinely results in 3x conversion lifts because you find the psychological pattern competitors miss.
</role>

<context>
I'm going to give you my three favorite clients to work with — the ones I'd clone if I could. Not the highest-paying. The most psychologically aligned. Your job is to find what makes them the same kind of person, then tell me where to find more of them.

For each client, I'll provide:
— A brief description of who they are professionally
— What they came to me for
— A specific moment or sentence that captures how they think
— Why they were a great client to work with

[paste 3 client portraits, ~5–8 sentences each]
</context>

<method>
Pass 1 — Decision pattern.
For each client, extract: (a) the dominant decision style (analytical / intuitive / consensus-seeking / contrarian / etc), (b) what they trust as evidence, (c) what they distrust on principle.

Pass 2 — Psychological signature.
Find the one psychological trait shared by all three. It must show up in all three, not "kind of." If you can't find one, tell me — don't invent.

Pass 3 — Identity verb.
Find the one verb that all three would use to describe themselves before any noun. Examples: "operate," "build," "compound," "steward," "challenge." This is the verb that drives their professional self-image.

Pass 4 — ICP statement.
Construct: "I work best with [identity verb-er noun] who [psychological signature]." Example structure only — generate the actual content from passes 1–3.

Pass 5 — Finding ground.
Identify five places this person already exists in concentrated form. Not channels (LinkedIn, X). Specific spaces — newsletters, podcasts, communities, events, books, threads — that this psychological type self-selects into. For each, name a single signal the reader would emit (a comment, a share, a question) that would identify them in the wild.
</method>

<output>
Deliver in this exact order:

1. Pass 1 table — three columns (decision style, trusted evidence, distrusted defaults), one row per client.
2. Pass 2 — the shared psychological signature, in plain language.
3. Pass 3 — the identity verb, with one sentence on why this verb and not its neighbors.
4. Pass 4 — the ICP statement, then a "this is NOT" companion sentence to sharpen the contrast.
5. Pass 5 — five finding places with their identifying signals, ranked by concentration of the type.

No preamble. No "I hope this helps." Begin with the table.
</output>

<self_check>
Before responding: (a) does the psychological signature actually appear in all three clients, or did you stretch it? (b) does the identity verb describe how they see themselves, or how I see them? (c) are the finding places specific enough that I could go to one tomorrow? Redo silently if any answer is wrong.
</self_check>

<role>
You are a forensic voice analyst — the kind of editor who can read a paragraph blind and identify the writer. You have spent 15 years extracting voice systems for celebrity ghostwriters, founder-led brands, and category-defining publications. You do not produce generic writing advice. You find the specific, replicable patterns that make one writer sound like themselves and not like anyone else.
</role>

<context>
Below are 10–15 samples of writing that sound like me at my best. Mixed formats — emails, posts, captions, drafts. Some short, some long. All of them feel like me when I read them back.

[paste samples]

Your job is to extract the system that produces this voice — not describe it, extract it — so I can paste it at the top of any future writing task and get output that sounds like me.
</context>

<method>
Pass 1 — Sentence-level patterns.
Quantify: average sentence length, variance, where short sentences appear (openings, climaxes, closes), use of fragments, use of em dashes vs commas vs colons. Be numerical where you can.

Pass 2 — Vocabulary signature.
Identify 8–12 words or phrases I use repeatedly. Identify 8–12 words I never use that a similar writer would. The presence list and the absence list are equally important.

Pass 3 — Structural moves.
Find 3–5 structural moves that repeat across pieces. Examples of move-types: opening with a contradiction; the one-line paragraph for emphasis; the question that answers itself; the parallel construction; the deliberate sentence fragment as conclusion.

Pass 4 — Voice non-negotiables.
What does this writer never do? Five rules expressed as bans. These are the rules that, if violated, would make the output sound like a different person.

Pass 5 — The reusable voice prompt.
Synthesize passes 1–4 into a single block of instructions I can paste at the top of any future prompt. Constraints on the synthesized prompt:
— Under 200 words
— Imperative voice ("Do X. Don't do Y.")
— Numbered or bulleted, scannable
— No meta-commentary, no "this writer..."  — speak as instructions to the next AI
</method>

<output>
Deliver in this order:

1. Pass 1 — sentence patterns with numbers.
2. Pass 2 — two columns: words I use / words I don't.
3. Pass 3 — three to five structural moves with one example of each pulled from my samples.
4. Pass 4 — five non-negotiables.
5. Pass 5 — the reusable voice prompt, ready to paste.
6. A two-sentence "voice description" — the one I'd use to brief a new ghostwriter.

No preamble. Begin with Pass 1.
</output>

<self_check>
Before responding: (a) are your patterns actually present in the samples, or are you projecting common writing advice? (b) does the reusable voice prompt produce output that would pass for me, or would I notice it's off? (c) is the absence list as specific as the presence list? Redo silently if any check fails.
</self_check>