Marketing context, in two layers

Agents read two layers before they write anything, and keeping them separate is what lets one company launch two products without one launch bleeding into the other.

Layer	Answers	Lives at
Company	Who we are, how we sound, what we may never claim	Company Profile
Project	Who this thing is for, how it is positioned, what we say about it	The project’s Positioning tab

The company layer is shared by everything. The project layer is narrower and wins where it is filled in.

Open the project layer

Open the project and choose the Positioning tab. A project that has never been set up shows a status of not started and a Set up with Eva button, which starts a guided conversation that fills the sections by asking you questions.

What goes in each section

ICP is the audience, in detail. A summary line, one entry per primary segment with who they are and how they behave, the segments you deliberately exclude, their pains, the outcomes they want, what makes them start looking, and the objections they raise. Summitline’s reads: weekend hikers who plan their own routes, and the trip leaders who plan for a group.

Positioning is the argument. The problem, the solution, the benefits, and what makes this different from what they use today.

Messaging is the words. One primary message, the supporting messages that carry it (the pillars), the calls to action, and the phrases agents may and may not use for this project specifically.

Under Additional context:

Channels are the ones you prefer and the ones you have ruled out, with a note saying why. You pick from four: Blog, Social, Email, and Other. The note is where the specifics go, such as which network or which newsletter.

Campaign context is the current push: its name, its goal, and any budget note. The budget note is context for the people and agents reading it, not an allowance: ad.spend stays hard-locked at L1 whatever number you write here, so no agent can act on it. See autonomy for marketing actions.

The panel on the right scores each section and says what is missing. It is a completeness measure, not a quality one, and a section at 100 that says the wrong thing is worse than one at 60 that says the right one.

Learnings

Below the editors, the Learnings list holds what the system has concluded from real signals: “webinars outperform whitepapers for us”, recorded with the evidence that backs it. Learnings are never written directly. Each one arrives as a proposal, and only an accepted proposal records it, so the list stays a set of reviewed conclusions rather than a scratchpad.

Click a learning to see its full text, where it came from, and the evidence it cites. A learning that cites nothing says so, which is itself worth noticing when you decide how much weight to give it. Learnings marked tenant-wide apply across every project, not just this one.

Recorded learnings are not decoration: every future marketing draft for this project receives them, along with the tenant-wide ones, and agents can find them again later with knowledge search. That search covers this project by default, in step with the list above, so an agent has to be asked before it reaches another project’s learnings. Accepting a learning is how the system gets smarter.

Who edits, and how

Everyone with access to the project can edit the fields, then click Review changes and write a change summary. What happens next depends on who you are:

Submit proposal is available to everyone. It queues the change for review rather than applying it, and it appears in the Proposals section further down the same page.
Save directly appears only for administrators. It applies the change and publishes a new version of the project’s marketing context immediately.

Agents never get the second option. Everything an agent wants to change arrives as a proposal, wherever it came from. See review marketing proposals.

The pin, and the conflicts

A project’s marketing context records which version of the company profile it was written against. When the company profile moves on, a banner appears offering to update that pin, so a project is never silently re-based onto a profile nobody re-read it with.

A second banner appears when the two layers disagree, naming the fields. That is usually a real decision waiting to be made rather than a mistake: the company says one thing, this project needs to say another, and one of them should change.

Next steps

Review marketing proposals: what happens to a submitted change.
What the company profile is: the layer underneath.
Product truth: the third input, and the only one you cannot write.