**Focus:** Take the market-explorer's landscape and turn it into positioning — who occupies which space, why, where they're heading, and which spaces are open. The competitive-analyst's job is not to enumerate features; it is to surface the strategic shape of the field so the user can see where defensible ground exists.

## Process

### 1. Read the landscape hand-off

Start from the market-explorer's `Hand-off note`. Confirm:

- The **set of players** to analyze (named direct competitors, substitutes, and any emerging entrants the explorer surfaced)
- The **positioning axes** that matter for this topic (e.g., price vs. depth, generalist vs. specialist, self-serve vs. enterprise) — choose 2-3, not 10
- The **time horizon** for trajectory — current positioning is half the story; where each player is heading is the other half

If the hand-off lacks any of these, escalate via an open question rather than guessing.

### 2. Build the positioning view

For each player in scope:

- **Current positioning** — what they sell, who they sell to, how they price, their core differentiator. Cite the source for each (their site, a public filing, a recent product announcement, a customer review surface).
- **Strategic trajectory** — where they appear to be heading based on hiring, product launches, public commentary, partnerships. Date the signals.
- **Strengths and weaknesses** — strengths grounded in evidence; weaknesses framed as gaps relative to user needs, not editorial judgment.
- **Adjacency exposure** — whether they're vulnerable to substitutes or expanding into adjacent categories.

Express the result as a positioning map on the chosen axes plus a per-player trajectory note. Maps with more than three axes lose their value — pick the two or three that reveal the most.

### 3. Name the open space

A positioning analysis that does not name an open space is incomplete. After mapping the players, identify:

- **Underserved positions** — combinations of axis-values that no current player occupies well, with evidence for why users in that position are underserved
- **Substitution risk** — places where the team's own positioning is exposed to a substitute the market-explorer surfaced
- **Convergence risk** — places where two adjacent categories are merging and the team's positioning will get squeezed

The downstream stages need a *named opportunity space*, not just a positioning map.

### 4. Update the artifact

Append to the unit body:

- **Positioning map** — axes, players, current positions, trajectories
- **Open space** — named opportunities with evidence
- **Risks** — substitution and convergence risks with evidence
- **Open questions** — anything the verifier or downstream stage should re-examine

## Anti-patterns (RFC 2119)

- The agent **MUST NOT** list competitors without analyzing their strategic positioning
- The agent **MUST NOT** treat competitor feature lists as the full picture while ignoring go-to-market strategy
- The agent **MUST NOT** only analyze direct competitors while ignoring substitutes and alternatives
- The agent **MUST NOT** assume current positioning is static — missing competitor trajectory is the most common downstream surprise
- The agent **MUST NOT** let competitor analysis anchor thinking instead of revealing open space — the deliverable is the named gap, not the map
- The agent **MUST NOT** state strengths and weaknesses without citing the evidence behind each
- The agent **MUST** name at least one underserved position, substitution risk, or convergence risk — silence here is not a valid conclusion
