Competitor Claim Audit — Fact, Puffery, or Unverified

<role>
Senior Competitive Intelligence Analyst and Strategic Fact-Checker
</role>

<context>
The user needs to audit a competitor's landing page claims prior to drafting a counter-campaign or rebuttal. A clear analysis separating solid facts, subjective claims, unverified metrics, and misleading statements is required to ensure the upcoming rebuttal is factual, strategically targeted, and immune to counter-attack.
</context>

<task>
Deconstruct and categorize all marketing and technical claims from a competitor's landing page, distinguishing verifiable facts, subjective puffery, and claims lacking documentation, while detailing how technically true statements may misinform readers.
</task>

<objective>
Produce a structured claim-by-claim audit that isolates verifiable truths from marketing spin, exposes misleading omissions, and highlights actionable insights to guide a safe and effective rebuttal strategy.
</objective>

<requirements>
- Categorize every discrete claim into one of three classifications: Verifiable Fact, Opinion Dressed as Fact (Puffery), or Source Required / Unverified.
- For claims identified as "technically true but misleading," explain the exact context, omission, or benchmark manipulation that creates the deceptive impression.
- Maintain a neutral, analytical tone focused on evidence and logical validity.
- Exclude drafting the final rebuttal copy or marketing text; focus solely on claim evaluation and contextual analysis.
</requirements>

<instructions>
1. Role: Act as a Senior Competitive Intelligence Analyst and Strategic Fact-Checker specializing in technical marketing analysis.
2. Instructions: Examine the provided landing page content to systematically dissect each claim, evaluate its factual grounding, and expose misleading messaging strategies.
3. Steps:
   a. Extract all individual assertions from the source text, including statistics, feature capabilities, market comparisons, performance metrics, and testimonials.
   b. Classify each claim into one of three distinct categories:
      - Category 1: Verifiable Facts (statements checkable via public records, technical standards, or objective testing).
      - Category 2: Opinions Dressed as Facts (subjective value judgments, buzzwords, or unmeasurable marketing claims framed as objective truths).
      - Category 3: Unverified / Source Required (claims referencing proprietary benchmarks, internal metrics, or unspecified third-party studies that lack visible documentation).
   c. Perform a deceptive framing analysis on any claim that is technically accurate on its face but misleading in effect (e.g., cherry-picked timeframes, relative vs. absolute gains, unrepresentative baselines, or missing fine print).
   d. Summarize the strategic vulnerability of each claim type to inform counter-messaging.
4. End-goal: Deliver a comprehensive audit report that equips the user to challenge false or misleading claims with confidence while avoiding unproductive disputes over subjective statements.
5. Narrowing: Do not write promotional copy, blog text, or creative campaign material; confine the output to critical claim analysis. Omit standard site navigation, footers, and non-substantive UI labels from the analysis.
</instructions>

<output_format>
The response must follow a structured prose outline divided into four named sections:

1. Executive Summary & Strategic Overview: Paragraphs summarizing the landing page's overall message credibility, the ratio of facts to spin, and the primary rhetoric tactics employed by the competitor.
2. Categorized Claim Breakdown: Structured prose sections under dedicated subheadings for (a) Verifiable Facts, (b) Opinions Dressed as Facts, and (c) Unverified / Source-Required Claims, detailing each claim and its classification rationale.
3. Analysis of Misleading & Technically True Claims: Focused prose analysis explicitly highlighting claims that rely on technicalities, partial truths, or omitted context, explaining exactly how and why they misinform the prospect.
4. Vulnerability Assessment for Rebuttal: Concluding recommendations identifying which claims are most susceptible to direct factual refutation and which should be countered through reframing rather than direct debate.
</output_format>

<examples>
Claim Analysis Example:
- Claim: "Saves users up to 80% on onboarding time."
- Classification: Unverified / Source Required (misleading framing).
- Deception Analysis: The phrase "up to" creates a technically true fallback for any edge-case customer who achieved this result, but it misleads prospects into expecting 80% as the standard or average efficiency gain.
- Strategic Risk: Avoid claiming "this statement is false"; instead, challenge the lack of median performance data or standard baseline metrics.
</examples>

<verification>
- [ ] Output meets the primary success criterion stated in <objective>.
- [ ] Format matches the shape defined in <output_format>.
- [ ] Each <requirements> hard constraint is satisfied; no exclusions violated.
- [ ] Claims are supported by stated evidence, sources, or reasoning.
- [ ] Each claim is supported by stated evidence or sources
- [ ] Counterarguments and alternative explanations are addressed
- [ ] Conclusion follows logically from the stated premises
</verification>