Awareness Stage Mapper

Execution Steps

Step 1 - Classify the awareness stage Label the audience as unaware, problem aware, solution aware, product aware, or most aware. Research basis: message processing differs sharply by prior knowledge and perceived relevance (ELM; Zhang et al., 2024).

Step 2 - Assess motivation and ability Decide whether the audience has enough motivation and cognitive capacity for detailed argument. Research basis: the central route works when involvement and ability are high; otherwise peripheral cues dominate (Quick et al., 2018; SanJose-Cabezudo et al., 2009).

Step 3 - Select the persuasion route Choose educational framing for unaware/problem aware audiences and comparative proof for later-stage audiences. Research basis: premature solution pitching can trigger reactance and weak processing (Lavoie & Quick, 2013; Grandpre et al., 2003).

Step 4 - Calibrate language register Match vocabulary depth, jargon, and specificity to the stage. Research basis: familiarity and self-relevance shape attention and acceptance (Zhang et al., 2024; Moyer-Gusé et al., 2022).

Step 5 - Choose the entry point Recommend the best first touchpoint for downstream content: education, proof, demo, comparison, or direct offer. Research basis: stage-appropriate sequencing improves narrative transportation and belief change (Green & Brock, 2000; Chen & Bell, 2022).

DECISION MATRIX

Variable: awareness stage

• If unaware -> lead with the problem and its lived consequences.
• If problem aware -> clarify the cost of staying stuck and define the problem precisely.
• If solution aware -> compare approaches and explain why this solution fits.
• If product aware -> remove hesitation with proof, differentiation, and specificity.
• If most aware -> make the next step obvious and low friction.

Variable: audience motivation

• If motivation is low -> use simple cues, concrete outcomes, and short pathways.
• If motivation is moderate -> mix explanation with proof.
• If motivation is high -> use detailed evidence and direct comparison.

Variable: resistance risk

• If reactance risk is high -> avoid commanding language and overclaiming.
• If reactance risk is moderate -> use choice-preserving language.
• If reactance risk is low -> use more direct conversion language.

FAILURE MODES - DO NOT DO THESE

Failure Mode 1

• Agents typically: pitch the solution to an audience that has not yet named the problem.
• Why it fails psychologically: the message asks for action before the audience has mental permission.
• Instead: start with the problem, not the product.

Failure Mode 2

• Agents typically: use central arguments when the audience is not ready to process them.
• Why it fails psychologically: low ability or motivation leads to shallow processing.
• Instead: simplify, sequence, and reduce cognitive load.

Failure Mode 3

• Agents typically: treat all audiences as equally skeptical.
• Why it fails psychologically: stage and context determine how much proof is needed.
• Instead: calibrate the amount and type of proof to the stage.

ETHICAL GUARDRAILS

This skill must:

• Respect the audience's current knowledge.
• Avoid pretending people are more aware than they are.
• Preserve autonomy and informed choice.

The line between persuasion and manipulation is using stage-appropriate language versus hiding the real intent or pushing a premature commitment. Never cross it.

SKILL CHAINING

Before invoking this skill, the agent should have completed:

• @customer-psychographic-profiler
• @jobs-to-be-done-analyst

This skill's output feeds into:

• @copywriting-psychologist
• @headline-psychologist
• @sequence-psychologist
• @pitch-psychologist
• @subject-line-psychologist

OUTPUT QUALITY CHECK

Before finalizing output, the agent asks:

• Did I classify the audience at the right awareness stage?
• Did I choose the correct persuasion route for that stage?
• Did I calibrate language to the audience's knowledge?
• Did I avoid premature solution pitching?
• Does the strategy preserve autonomy and trust?

Limitations

• Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above.
• Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review.
• Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs, permissions, safety boundaries, or success criteria are missing.