--- name: message-architecture description: "The critical-to-quality (CTQ) tree's need-driver-measure discipline pointed at your standing product message instead of a single deal: the buyer need at the top, the message pillar that addresses it, and a specific, already-proven number underneath — with any pillar that isn't proven yet named plainly rather than shipped as a confident-sounding claim. Use when: You have proof points that already worked in real deals (a value hypothesis, a case study, a deal A3 finding) and want to turn them into a standing message every rep and channel uses the same way. Not for: You don't have any proven deals yet — a value hypothesis for a real opportunity comes first; a message architecture generalizes from proof that already exists, it doesn't invent proof from nothing. You want a single deal's specific pitch — that's a value hypothesis; a message architecture is the standing version reused across every deal." --- # Message architecture The critical-to-quality (CTQ) tree's need-driver-measure discipline pointed at your standing product message instead of a single deal: the buyer need at the top, the message pillar that addresses it, and a specific, already-proven number underneath — with any pillar that isn't proven yet named plainly rather than shipped as a confident-sounding claim. Family: Voice of the customer · Format: .xlsx · Domain: commercial ## What it is A message architecture is the org-wide version of a value hypothesis — the same three-level tree (buyer need, message pillar, proof point), but built once and reused across every deal and every channel instead of rebuilt fresh per opportunity. A message pillar without a real number behind it is a slogan, not a message architecture — "we help you catch risk early" isn't a pillar; "deals flagged at-risk within 48 hours, versus 3 weeks today" is. The tree tracks its own coverage the same way a value hypothesis does: any pillar with no proven measure yet is named directly, not quietly treated as ready to use in marketing copy. ## When to use it Use it when: - You have proof points that already worked in real deals (a value hypothesis, a case study, a deal A3 finding) and want to turn them into a standing message every rep and channel uses the same way. - Reps, marketing, and customer success are each describing the product's value differently, and you want one substantiated version everyone actually uses. - You want to know honestly which claims in your current pitch are backed by a real, provable number and which are still an assumption dressed up as a pillar. Not when: - You don't have any proven deals yet — a value hypothesis for a real opportunity comes first; a message architecture generalizes from proof that already exists, it doesn't invent proof from nothing. - You want a single deal's specific pitch — that's a value hypothesis; a message architecture is the standing version reused across every deal. ## How to fill it in - **scope** — What product or product line is this the standing message for? - **needs** — List each buyer need this message speaks to, ideally traced to real proven deals. Pillars and proof points get drafted beneath each one — don't fill those in at intake. - **coverage** — Computed for you: total needs, pillars, and proof points, and which needs still have no proven measure beneath them — nothing to enter here. - **narrative** — Drafted from the tree and any coverage gaps — which pillars are proven and ready to use, which aren't yet. - **nextSteps** — What will you do about an unproven pillar or a specific gap, ranked by impact and effort, owned and dated? ## What good looks like The example below generalizes the value hypothesis already built and proven for the Northline Freight opportunity into Beacon Analytics' standing message — the same 48-hour visibility target and $310K reference figure, organized as the message every deal should use, with the one unproven pillar honestly held back rather than shipped as a claim. Full worked example, on-screen and as a downloadable .xlsx: https://www.katafacts.com/katas/message-architecture ## Common mistakes - **Promoting a pillar into the standing message before it's actually been proven in a real deal.** — A message architecture exists specifically to stop an assumption from quietly becoming "the pitch" — an unproven pillar belongs in the coverage gap, not in marketing copy, until it earns its place the same way the proven ones did. - **Letting each rep or channel restate a proven pillar's number in their own words.** — A pillar's whole value is a specific, checkable number — "pretty fast" instead of "under 48 hours" quietly turns a substantiated claim back into an assertion nobody can defend. - **Building the message architecture before any deal has actually proven the pillars underneath it.** — This tool generalizes from real, already-proven evidence — building it first and hoping deals prove it later inverts the order this catalogue's own discipline depends on everywhere else. ## What it connects to Upstream: - **Value hypothesis** (`value-hypothesis`) — A pillar's proof point should trace back to a real value hypothesis that actually worked in a deal — this tree is where that proven pillar gets promoted into the standing message, not invented fresh. Downstream: - **Value proposition map** (`value-proposition-canvas`) — The same needs and proof points organized here as a tree map directly onto a value proposition map's jobs/pains/gains — two complementary views of the same evidence, not two separate messages to keep in sync by hand. - **Consistency audit** (`consistency-audit`) — Once a pillar is proven and promoted here, a consistency audit is what checks weeks later whether reps and channels are actually still using it — and whether an unproven pillar has quietly crept into claims anyway. - **Proof point inventory** (`proof-point-inventory`) — This tree's own proven pillars are exactly the categories a proof point inventory tracks over time, as more deals add more real, checked evidence beyond the first one that proved each pillar. ## Where AI helps Judgement — stays with you: - Deciding whether a pillar's evidence is strong enough to promote from a single deal into the standing message - Deciding which coverage gap to close before the next pillar gets promoted Analysis — AI helps: - Drafting pillars and proof points from a stated need and its supporting proven-deal evidence - Drafting the narrative from the tree and any coverage gaps Drudgery — automated: - Counting needs, pillars, and proof points across the whole architecture - Identifying which needs still have no proven measure - Exporting to xlsx in the house format --- Message architecture is licensed [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Attribution: Katafacts (katafacts.com). ## Using this skill Apply this method as part of whatever broader task, instructions, or deliverable you're already working on -- it's a method to use, not a standalone conversation to start. There is no generation tool for this catalogue yet, so draft the artifact's actual content yourself, following the fields above, the same way a person filling this out by hand would. The canonical guide page and a downloadable worked example (.xlsx) are at https://www.katafacts.com/katas/message-architecture.