Branding

research ─► strategy ─► verbal identity ─► visual identity ─► guidelines ─► rollout
 audit,      positioning,  name, voice,      logo system,       rules,          touchpoints,
 interviews  personality   messaging         color, type,       examples,       launch,
                                             imagery            misuse          measure

Geoffrey Moore, Crossing the Chasm (positioning statement)
For [target customers] who are dissatisfied with [current alternative],
our product is a [new product category] that provides [key benefit].
Unlike [the product alternative], we have [key differentiators].
 
April Dunford, Obviously Awesome (five components, worked in this order)
1. Competitive alternatives   what customers would do if we didn't exist
2. Unique attributes          what we have that the alternatives lack
3. Value (and proof)          what those attributes enable for customers
4. Target market              who cares a lot about that value
5. Market category            the context that makes the value obvious
(+ relevant trends, optional)

Tagline           one public line                 "Books closed by Friday."
Value proposition who + outcome + how, 1–2 lines   for firms of 1–10 bookkeepers
Message pillars   3 themes, each a benefit         speed · accuracy · calm
Proof points      2–3 per pillar: numbers,         "matches 95% of lines"
                  features, customers, awards      (only if true and sourced)
Boilerplate       60–100 word "About"              for press and partners

SCREENING CHECKLIST (the model helps with 1–5; 6–8 are your job)
1. Meets the naming brief (meaning, tone, length)
2. Easy to say and spell after hearing it once
3. No unfortunate meanings or slang in target languages
4. Doesn't describe a feature you might drop
5. Not confusingly close to a competitor's name
6. Domain and social handles available (check registrars yourself)
7. Trademark search in your classes and countries
   (USPTO search, WIPO Global Brand Database, EUIPO TMview)
8. Professional clearance by a trademark attorney before launch

flat vector-style logo symbol, a single abstract shape suggesting a
folded page and a checkmark, geometric, thick even strokes, one color
(dark navy) on a plain white background, centered, no text, no
gradients, no shadows, no 3D, no mockup, simple enough to read at
favicon size

<context>
I need a brand platform for [business, e.g. bookkeeping software for small accounting firms]: positioning, personality and voice, a messaging hierarchy, then a direction for the visual identity.
Stage: [stage: new brand | refresh | rebrand]. I am not a brand strategist.
</context>
 
<task>
Interview me first: ask the questions a brand strategist asks in discovery, before any strategy is written.
</task>
 
<requirements>
- At most 10 questions, grouped under: the business and audience, competitive alternatives (including doing nothing), proof, desired perception and personality, hard usage contexts, constraints and who decides.
- For each question: why it matters to the platform, and 2-3 typical answers I can pick from or adapt.
- Ask explicitly what proof I have (numbers, customers, history); I may not know what counts.
- Do not draft positioning, names or visuals yet.
</requirements>
 
<process>
Ask the questions, then stop and wait for my answers.
</process>

<materials>
[paste the interview questions and my answers, and competitors' homepage headlines if you have them]
</materials>
 
<task>
Propose 3 materially different positioning territories for this brand.
</task>
 
<requirements>
- Work in April Dunford's order: competitive alternatives first, then unique attributes, value and proof, best-fit audience, market category.
- For each territory: the alternative it positions against, the category frame and what it implies about price, the point of difference and the proof behind it, a fitting archetype (as a briefing shorthand, not research), which archetypes competitors already use, and the main risk.
- Mark any point of difference with no proof in my answers [NEEDS PROOF].
- Recommend one and say what would have to be true for each of the others to win.
</requirements>
 
<process>
Give the territories as a table, then the recommendation, then stop and wait for my choice.
</process>

<materials>
Interview answers and the territory I chose: [paste]
Competitors' claims: [paste their homepage headlines, taglines and About paragraphs]
</materials>
 
<context>
Business: [one plain sentence, e.g. "We sell bookkeeping software to firms with 1-10 bookkeepers."]
Audience: [audience, e.g. owners of small accounting firms, 40-60, skeptical of hype]
Desired feeling after a month: [feeling, e.g. "I'm in control"]
Proof we have: [real facts only, e.g. founded by two former bookkeepers; 300 paying firms]
Hard uses: [contexts, e.g. app icon, invoice footer, embroidered shirt, one-color stamp]
Stage: [stage: new brand | refresh | rebrand]
Logo type to explore first: [logo type: wordmark | lettermark | symbol | combination mark | emblem | let the strategy decide]
The platform is for [readers, e.g. the two founders, who decide, and a freelance designer who will be briefed from it].
</context>
 
<examples>
[optional: 1-3 brands outside our category whose voice or identity you admire, and exactly what you admire, e.g. "Mailchimp's voice: the warmth, not the jokes"; 1 you don't want to resemble, and why]
</examples>
 
<task>
A brand platform: positioning, promise, personality and voice, messaging hierarchy, then a direction for the visual identity that a designer can work from.
</task>
 
<requirements>
- Positioning: a statement in Geoffrey Moore's format, built from Dunford's five components, against the alternative I chose, plus a one-line homepage version.
- Brand promise: one sentence a support agent could keep.
- Personality: 3-5 traits, each with a "but not"; one archetype from Mark and Pearson's twelve as a shorthand, presented as a framework, not as research.
- Voice: a position on Nielsen Norman Group's four tone dimensions (funny-serious, formal-casual, respectful-irreverent, enthusiastic-matter-of-fact), a "we are / we are not" table with a sample line for each, and the tone for an error, a price increase and a celebration.
- Messaging hierarchy: 5 tagline options, a value proposition, 3 pillars, 2-3 proof points per pillar, and a 60-100 word boilerplate.
- Identity direction: logo type and why, shape language, palette roles (primary, secondary, accent, neutrals), type direction and imagery rules, each traced to a line of the strategy. No finished logo.
- Never invent numbers, names, quotes or sources: write [NEEDS PROOF] where a claim has no proof I supplied.
- Do not say any name or mark is available or trademark-free.
- End with a list of the assumptions you made.
</requirements>
 
<quality_bar>
Before answering, check your draft against:
- The competitor test: put a competitor's name in place of ours; rewrite every line that still works until it couldn't.
- Every pillar and proof point traces to my materials, or is marked [NEEDS PROOF].
- Each "but not" rules out something a competitor does.
- The identity direction survives the hard uses: 16 px, one color, embroidery.
</quality_bar>
 
<output_format>
Sections in this order: positioning, promise, personality, voice (tables), messaging hierarchy (a table: level | content | proof | source), identity direction (one short paragraph per element). Under 1,500 words, then the assumptions.
</output_format>
 
<process>
Ask me up to 3 questions first if anything missing would change your answer; otherwise go on.
Write the positioning first and check it against the quality bar before building the rest on it.
</process>

<materials>
The brief: [paste the stage 3 prompt]
The brand platform: [paste]
Competitors' homepage headlines: [paste]
</materials>
 
<context>
This is a fresh chat. The platform below was written in another conversation; review it as someone seeing it for the first time, before it is shared with a designer.
</context>
 
<task>
A review of this brand platform. Do not rewrite it.
</task>
 
<requirements>
- Judge against: strategic fit, distinctiveness, simplicity, scalability of the identity direction, ownability, consistency of the voice across situations, honesty of claims, and whether a non-designer could use it.
- Run the competitor test on every line of the positioning and messaging, and list the lines that fail.
- List every claim that needs proof, and say whether the brief supplied it.
- Quote the line behind every finding.
</requirements>
 
<quality_bar>
Before answering, check that every finding names a criterion, quotes the line, and proposes a specific fix.
</quality_bar>
 
<output_format>
A table: rank | finding | criterion | quoted line | fix, most important first. Then one line: ready, fix first, or rethink the positioning.
</output_format>
 
<process>
Rank the issues by how much they weaken the brand; do not produce a revised platform.
</process>

Here are the homepage headlines, taglines and About paragraphs of [number, e.g. 6] competitors: [paste]. Build a table: brand, main claim (quoted), archetype, personality traits, dominant color, typical imagery.
Then list the claims everyone makes, the claims nobody makes, and 3 open positioning territories with the risk of each. Quote; don't paraphrase.

<materials>
[paste each competitor's homepage headline, tagline and About paragraph, labeled by brand, plus a short description of each logo and its colors]
</materials>
 
<context>
We are: [one plain sentence, e.g. "bookkeeping software for firms with 1-10 bookkeepers"]
Our audience: [audience, e.g. owners of small accounting firms]
Alternatives our customers consider: [alternatives, e.g. QuickBooks, spreadsheets, a part-time assistant, doing nothing]
</context>
 
<task>
A competitor audit that shows where every brand in the category sits and which positioning territories are open to us.
</task>
 
<requirements>
- For each brand: main claim (quoted), archetype as a shorthand, 3 personality traits, dominant color, typical imagery, logo type.
- The claims everyone makes (points of parity) and the claims nobody makes.
- A competitive map: propose 2 axes buyers actually choose on, and place every alternative on it, including doing nothing.
- 3 open territories, each with the proof we would need to own it and the risk (an empty corner can mean nobody wants it).
- Use only what is in the materials and mark anything you infer as inferred. Never invent numbers, names, quotes or sources: write [NEEDS SOURCE] where a fact is missing.
- End with a list of the assumptions you made.
</requirements>
 
<quality_bar>
Before answering, check your draft against:
- Every claim attributed to a brand is quoted from the materials.
- The map's axes are things buyers choose on, not things we happen to be good at.
- Each open territory says how we would test that customers want it.
</quality_bar>
 
<output_format>
A table with one row per brand, the map as a list of coordinates on the two axes, the territories in under 100 words each, then the assumptions.
</output_format>
 
<process>
Ask me up to 3 questions first if anything missing would change your answer; otherwise go on.
</process>

Generate 40 names from this naming brief: [paste], 8 each that are suggestive, arbitrary, coined, compound and metaphor-based. For each: one-line rationale, pronunciation and main risk.
Don't claim any name is available; I'll check domains and trademarks myself.

<materials>
[optional: paste the naming brief, if you have one]
</materials>
 
<context>
What it names: [thing: company | product | feature | sub-brand]
Positioning and personality: [paste, e.g. "fast service, calm feeling"; confident but not loud]
Must convey: [ideas, e.g. calm, speed, a pause in the day]
Must avoid: [words, e.g. the ones competitors use: "brew", "bean", "daily"]
Length: [limit, e.g. 2 syllables or under 8 letters]
Markets and languages: [markets, e.g. US, UK and Germany]
Competitors: [names, e.g. the 3 brands customers compare us with]
</context>
 
<examples>
[optional: 2-3 names you like from any category and why, e.g. "a short real word used in an unexpected way"; 1 you dislike, and why]
</examples>
 
<task>
A longlist of names that meet the brief, then a scored shortlist of the 10 strongest, to take into domain and trademark checks.
</task>
 
<requirements>
- 40 names: 8 each that are suggestive, arbitrary, coined, compound and metaphor-based. Label each with its type on the USPTO strength spectrum (fanciful and arbitrary strongest, suggestive next, descriptive weak).
- For each: a one-line rationale, pronunciation, and any risk (a meaning or slang in a target language, likely to be common, too close to a competitor).
- Score the 10 strongest 1-5 on: fits the brief, memorable, easy to say and spell after hearing it once, distinct from competitors, works in every target language, room to grow.
- Do not claim any name is available or trademark-free: write [CHECK REGISTER] beside every shortlisted name.
- Never invent numbers, names, quotes or sources: write [NEEDS SOURCE] where support is missing.
- End with a list of the assumptions you made.
</requirements>
 
<quality_bar>
Before answering, check your draft against:
- No name describes a feature we might drop.
- No two shortlisted names are variations of one idea.
- Doubtful meanings in a target language are flagged, not kept silently.
</quality_bar>
 
<output_format>
The longlist as a table (name | type | rationale | pronunciation | risk), then the shortlist scoring table, then the checks I must run myself (domains, handles, trademark search in my classes and countries, attorney clearance), then the assumptions.
</output_format>
 
<process>
Ask me up to 3 questions first if anything missing would change your answer; otherwise go on.
</process>

Create a voice guide for [brand, e.g. a bookkeeping app] whose personality is [traits, e.g. direct but not curt, warm but not gushing]: a position on NN/g's four tone dimensions, a "we are / we are not" table with sample lines, the tone for an error, a price increase and a celebration, and 10 words we use and 10 we avoid.
Check that every sample line sounds like the same person.

<materials>
Positioning and personality: [paste]
Copy to rewrite: [paste a real page or email]
</materials>
 
<context>
Audience: [audience, e.g. owners of small accounting firms, skeptical of hype]
Who will use the guide: [writers, e.g. two founders, a support team of four, a freelance copywriter]
Channels: [channels, e.g. app interface, support emails, website, social posts]
</context>
 
<examples>
[paste 3 pieces of copy that sound like us, or like who we want to be, and why; 3 that don't, and why]
</examples>
 
<task>
A voice and tone guide that people with no writing training can follow.
</task>
 
<requirements>
- A position on Nielsen Norman Group's four tone dimensions (funny-serious, formal-casual, respectful-irreverent, enthusiastic-matter-of-fact), each 1-5 with a reason.
- A "we are / we are not" table, 3-5 rows, each with a line that sounds like us and one that doesn't.
- Tone by situation: onboarding, error, price increase, outage, celebration, legal notice; one example line each.
- 8 concrete writing rules inferred from the examples (sentence length, person, contractions, jargon, humor, punctuation), plus 10 words we use and 10 we avoid.
- Rewrite the pasted copy with the rules and say which rule drove each change.
- Never invent numbers, names, quotes or sources: write [NEEDS PROOF] beside any claim in the rewrite that I haven't supported.
- End with a list of the assumptions you made.
</requirements>
 
<quality_bar>
Before answering, check your draft against:
- Every rule can be tested on a sentence: a writer could say whether it was followed.
- The outage and legal lines still sound like the same brand, only more serious.
- The rewrite changes no facts and adds no claims.
</quality_bar>
 
<output_format>
The dimensions table, the voice table, the tone table, the rules, the word lists, then the rewrite with change notes. Under 1,200 words.
</output_format>
 
<process>
Ask me up to 3 questions first if anything missing would change your answer; otherwise go on.
</process>

From this strategy: [paste], give 4 logo directions of different kinds (e.g. abstract symbol, pictorial, lettermark, emblem). For each: why it fits, and an image-generator prompt that describes only the mark (shape, stroke, color count, plain background) and ends "no text, no gradients, no shadows, no mockups, no 3D".
Say how each would fail at 16 px.

<materials>
Strategy: [paste the positioning, personality and audience]
</materials>
 
<context>
Name: [name, e.g. Slow Lane]
Hard uses: [contexts, e.g. favicon, a hanging sign seen from 20 m, an embroidered polo shirt, a one-color stamp]
Category clichés to avoid: [symbols, e.g. cups, beans, steam]
These are explorations to react to and to brief a designer with, not the final logo.
</context>
 
<examples>
[optional: 1-3 marks from outside our category that you admire, described in words (shape, weight, color count) with why; 1 style you don't want. Describe them; don't upload competitors' logos]
</examples>
 
<task>
Four logo directions, each turned into prompts for an image generator, so I can explore before briefing a designer.
</task>
 
<requirements>
- The directions differ in kind, e.g. geometric abstract, pictorial, lettermark, emblem.
- For each: the idea in one sentence and the line of the strategy it expresses.
- An image prompt that describes only the mark: logo type, shape language, stroke, color count, plain background, and an exclusion list (no text, no gradients, no shadows, no mockups, no 3D). No lettering in any prompt: image tools garble it, and the wordmark will be set in real type. Describe a lettermark in words for a designer instead.
- 3 variations per direction, each changing one thing.
- How each would fail at 16 px, in one color and embroidered.
- No reference to existing brands or named living designers.
- Never invent numbers, names, quotes or sources: write [NEEDS SOURCE] where support is missing.
- End with a list of the assumptions you made.
</requirements>
 
<quality_bar>
Before answering, check your draft against:
- Each mark can be described in one sentence and drawn from memory.
- At least one direction avoids the category's literal symbols.
- No prompt asks for text or a mockup.
</quality_bar>
 
<output_format>
Per direction: idea, strategy link, prompt (plain text I can paste), 3 variations, failure cases.
</output_format>
 
<process>
Ask me up to 3 questions first if anything missing would change your answer; otherwise go on.
</process>

Write a one-page identity design brief for a freelance designer from this strategy: [paste]. Include the audience, positioning, personality, competitors' visual codes to avoid, hard uses, deliverables (logo system, palette with roles, type pairing, icon style, short guidelines, vector masters), timeline, budget and how options will be judged.
Check that a designer could quote from it without a call.

<materials>
Strategy: [paste the brand platform]
Competitors' visual codes: [paste the competitor audit, or describe their colors, marks and imagery]
</materials>
 
<context>
Stage: [stage: new brand | refresh | rebrand]
Assets to keep: [assets, e.g. "customers know our green", or "none"]
Designer: [designer, e.g. a freelancer found through a portfolio site, briefed by email]
Timeline: [dates, e.g. first concepts in 3 weeks, final files in 8]
Budget range: [range, e.g. $5,000-8,000]
Who decides: [decider, e.g. the two founders]
</context>
 
<examples>
[1-3 identities from outside our category that you admire, and exactly what, e.g. "the restraint: one color, one typeface"; 1 you don't want to resemble, and why]
</examples>
 
<task>
A one-page identity design brief, so a designer can quote, plan and start without a discovery call.
</task>
 
<requirements>
- Sections: background, audience, positioning, personality, competitors and their visual codes to avoid, hard usage contexts, deliverables, what I will provide, timeline, budget, how options will be judged, and who decides.
- Deliverables by name: a logo system (primary and alternate lockups, color versions, clear space, minimum size), a palette with roles, a type pairing with licenses covering web, app and print, an icon style, short guidelines, and vector masters (SVG, PDF) plus PNG exports.
- Judging criteria drawn from the strategy, not taste, e.g. distinct from competitors, legible at 16 px, works in one color.
- Never invent numbers, names, quotes or sources: write [NEEDS SOURCE] where support is missing.
- End with a list of the assumptions you made.
</requirements>
 
<quality_bar>
Before answering, check your draft against:
- It fits on one page, about 500 words.
- Someone other than me could check every judging criterion on a concept.
- It asks for a system with rules, not one mark.
</quality_bar>
 
<output_format>
One page with the sections above as short headings, then the assumptions.
</output_format>
 
<process>
Ask me up to 3 questions first if anything missing would change your answer; otherwise go on.
</process>

Write short brand guidelines for a [team, e.g. 5-person team with no designer] from these inputs: [paste]. Sections: strategy (one page), logo (lockups, clear space, minimum size, 6 misuse examples), color, type, imagery, voice, 10 application examples.
Keep each section under 200 words, each with a "when in doubt" rule.

<materials>
[paste the positioning, personality, voice guide, a description of the logo files, palette HEX values and typefaces]
</materials>
 
<context>
Team: [team, e.g. 5 people, no in-house designer, making slides, emails and social posts]
Brand architecture: [architecture: single brand | branded house | sub-brands | endorsed brands | house of brands]
What the team makes most: [list, e.g. sales slides, invoices, social posts]
</context>
 
<task>
Short brand guidelines a non-designer can make a correct slide from.
</task>
 
<requirements>
- Sections: strategy on one page; logo (lockups, clear space, minimum size in px and mm, color versions, 6 misuse examples); color (roles, values, usage share, accessible text pairs); typography (faces, weights, scale, fallbacks, license notes); imagery; voice; 10 application examples (email signature, slide, social post, invoice and so on).
- Text color pairs must meet WCAG 2.2 AA (4.5:1 for body text, 3:1 for large text and UI); write [VERIFY] beside every ratio so I check it with a contrast tool.
- Each section under 200 words, with one "when in doubt" rule.
- Never invent numbers, names, quotes or sources: write [NEEDS SOURCE] where support is missing.
- End with a list of the assumptions you made.
</requirements>
 
<quality_bar>
Before answering, check your draft against:
- Every rule comes with an example of correct use, and the logo section with examples of misuse.
- Nothing contradicts the strategy or the voice guide.
- The whole document can be read in 10 minutes.
</quality_bar>
 
<output_format>
Markdown with one heading per section and tables for color and type, then the assumptions.
</output_format>
 
<process>
Ask me up to 3 questions first if anything missing would change your answer; otherwise go on.
</process>

We're considering [change: refresh | rebrand | new name] because [reason, e.g. a merger, a name conflict, a dated look]. Argue for a refresh, a full rebrand and no change: equity kept or lost, cost across our touchpoints, risks.
Recommend one, say what would have to be true for the others, and stop there.

<materials>
[paste what customers say about us, any recognition data, and the list of touchpoints: site, app, invoices, signage, packaging, vehicles]
</materials>
 
<context>
Why change is proposed: [reason: dated look | inconsistent use | merger | new market or audience | name conflict | reputation problem | new leadership's taste]
What customers know us for: [assets, e.g. the green, the owl symbol, the name]
Who decides, and when: [decider, e.g. the board, in 6 weeks]
</context>
 
<task>
A reasoned recommendation on whether to refresh, rebrand or change nothing, so the decision rests on strategy rather than taste.
</task>
 
<requirements>
- Argue each option in turn, at its strongest: equity kept or lost, cost and effort across the listed touchpoints, risks, and timeline.
- Separate good reasons for change (the strategy has moved, a name conflict, a merger) from bad ones (boredom, a new executive's taste), and say which this case is.
- If the name may change, list the legal checks needed and who does them.
- Never invent numbers, names, quotes or sources: write [NEEDS SOURCE] where support is missing.
- End with a list of the assumptions you made.
</requirements>
 
<quality_bar>
Before answering, check your draft against:
- Each option gets its strongest case, not a straw man.
- The recommendation names the evidence that would change it.
- Costs are listed per touchpoint, not as "significant".
</quality_bar>
 
<output_format>
A comparison table (option | equity kept | equity lost | cost by touchpoint | risk), the recommendation in under 150 words, then the assumptions.
</output_format>
 
<process>
Ask me up to 3 questions first if anything missing would change your answer; otherwise go on. Give the options and the recommendation, then stop; don't plan the rollout yet.
</process>

[attach image] An early logo concept for [brand, e.g. a coffee shop by a commuter station], used on [contexts, e.g. cup sleeve, hanging sign, app icon]. Critique it: concept clarity, what it resembles, legibility at 16 px and at 20 m, one-color and reversed versions, stroke consistency, and what must change when it is redrawn as vector.
Rank the fixes; don't redraw it.

<materials>
[attach the image or images]
Strategy: [paste the positioning and personality]
</materials>
 
<context>
Brand: [brand, e.g. Slow Lane, a coffee shop by a commuter station]
Hard uses: [contexts, e.g. cup sleeve, a hanging sign seen from 20 m, app icon, one-color rubber stamp]
Where it came from: [source: image generator | sketch | a designer's first round]
</context>
 
<task>
A critique of this logo concept before it goes further, so I know what a designer would change. Do not redraw it.
</task>
 
<requirements>
- Judge against the rubric: strategic fit, distinctiveness, simplicity, scalability, ownability.
- Check: the concept in one sentence; common category symbols or existing logos it resembles; legibility at 16 px and at 20 m; one-color, reversed and embroidered versions; balance and stroke consistency; any generated lettering.
- Say what must change when it is redrawn as vector with licensed type.
- Never invent numbers, names, quotes or sources: write [NEEDS SOURCE] where support is missing. Name a resembling logo only if you are confident, and recommend a reverse image search either way.
- End with a list of the assumptions you made.
</requirements>
 
<quality_bar>
Before answering, check your draft against:
- Every finding points at a specific part of the image.
- The fixes are ranked by how much they change the result, not by how easy they are.
- No finding is taste alone, without a criterion behind it.
</quality_bar>
 
<output_format>
A table: rank | finding | criterion | fix. Then 3 revision directions, one sentence each.
</output_format>
 
<process>
Ask me up to 3 questions first if anything missing would change your answer; otherwise go on.
</process>

Make me a logo for my coffee shop. Something modern and cool.

<context>
I'm opening a coffee shop called "Slow Lane" next to a commuter train station.
Audience: commuters 25-45 who want a calm 3 minutes, not a lounge.
Competitors: a chain cafe in the station (fast, impersonal) and an artisan cafe 1 km away (slow, expensive).
We want to own "fast service, calm feeling". Proof we have: none yet; we open in March.
Hard uses: a cup sleeve, a hanging sign seen from 20 m, a loyalty app icon, a rubber stamp in one color.
</context>
 
<examples>
I like the restraint of old railway signage: one color, bold shapes, no decoration. I don't want the cozy hand-drawn chalkboard look every cafe nearby has.
</examples>
 
<task>
A short brand strategy and three logo directions in words, each with an image-generator prompt, so I can explore before hiring a designer.
</task>
 
<requirements>
- A positioning statement in Geoffrey Moore's format and 4 personality traits, each with a "but not".
- Three logo directions of different kinds (e.g. symbol, lettermark, emblem), each traced to the positioning.
- Each image prompt describes only the mark: shape, stroke, color count, plain background; it excludes text, gradients, shadows and mockups.
- Never invent numbers, names, quotes or sources: write [NEEDS PROOF] for any claim we can't back yet.
- End with a list of the assumptions you made.
</requirements>
 
<quality_bar>
Before answering, check your draft against:
- The competitor test: neither cafe could use these lines or marks.
- Every mark survives favicon size and one color.
- No image prompt asks for lettering.
</quality_bar>
 
<output_format>
The positioning, the traits as a table, then per direction: idea, why it fits, image prompt. Under 500 words.
</output_format>
 
<process>
Ask me up to 3 questions first if anything missing would change your answer; otherwise go on.
</process>

Positioning: For commuters who want a calm moment on the way to the train, Slow Lane is a station coffee bar that serves you in under 3 minutes [NEEDS PROOF] in a quiet room. Unlike the chain cafe, it feels personal; unlike the artisan cafe, it won't make you miss your train.
 
Traits: calm, but not sleepy · quick, but not rushed · warm, but not cutesy · plain-spoken, but not blunt
 
Direction 1, symbol: a cup whose steam is a winding road.
Prompt: flat vector-style logo symbol, a single continuous line forming a steaming cup that doubles as a winding road, thick even stroke, rounded ends, one color (deep green) on plain white, centered, no text, no gradients, no shadows, no 3D, no mockup
 
Direction 2, lettermark: "SL" as two lanes merging.
Prompt: minimal monogram logo, the letters "SL" in a bold geometric sans serif, the S flowing into the L like two road lanes merging, one color (deep green), plain white background, no gradients, no mockup
 
Direction 3, emblem: the name around a ring like a station clock face …
 
Assumptions: deep green reads as calm; the sign is lit at night.

Direction 2's prompt asks the image tool to draw the letters "SL", which breaks the no-lettering check. Keep directions 1 and 3 as they are. Replace direction 2's prompt with a written brief a designer could use to draw the lettermark: the idea, how the letters are built, stroke weight relative to the symbol in direction 1, and how it must read at 16 px. For direction 3, add a simplified version for the app icon and the stamp. Change nothing else.

Put [competitor, e.g. the station chain cafe]'s name in place of ours in this platform. Which lines still work? List them with the reason; don't rewrite yet.