Positioning engine

Orchestration Log: When this skill is activated, append a log entry to outputs/orchestration_log.md:

### Skill Activation: Positioning Engine
**Timestamp:** [current date/time]
**Actor:** AI Agent (positioning-engine)
**Input:** Paper draft + [N] comparison papers identified
**Output:** Differentiation matrix with [N] dimensions, positioning_analysis.md saved

Positioning Engine

Core Principle

"How is your paper different from X?" is the question every reviewer asks. This engine produces a systematic answer. It identifies the 5-10 most similar existing papers, builds a structured differentiation matrix, and generates a positioning statement that makes the unique contribution explicit and defensible.

The output directly strengthens the Introduction (gap + contribution paragraphs) and the Discussion (theoretical implications).

When to Activate

• User says "position my paper", "how is this different from X?", "differentiation"
• User says "compare to related work", "positioning analysis", "unique contribution"
• During Phase 2 (Framing) to sharpen the gap and contribution
• When a reviewer challenges the novelty or contribution
• User runs /analyze-positioning

Prerequisites

• draft.md or paper.tex exists (to understand the paper's claims)
• references.bib and/or literature_base.csv exist (comparison candidates)
• Research questions and contribution are at least tentatively defined

---

Step 1: IDENTIFY Closest Competitors

Finding the Most Similar Papers

Sources for comparison papers:

1. From the paper itself: Papers cited in the Introduction and Related Work that address the same or very similar research questions
2. From literature_base.csv: Papers with the highest topical overlap
3. From snowballing: Forward citations of the paper's key references that appeared after those references were published
4. Direct search: Search for papers with very similar titles or identical keywords

Selection Criteria

Select 5-10 papers that are the closest competitors — papers that a reviewer might say "but Author X already did this." These are papers that:

• Address the same or very similar research questions
• Study the same phenomenon in a similar context
• Use a similar methodology
• Apply the same theoretical lens
• Were published recently (high overlap risk)

Output

For each selected paper, extract:

{
  "bib_key": "[key]",
  "title": "[title]",
  "authors": "[authors]",
  "year": [year],
  "venue": "[venue]",
  "rq": "[their research question or objective]",
  "method": "[their method]",
  "theory": "[their theoretical lens]",
  "context": "[their empirical context]",
  "key_finding": "[their main finding]",
  "similarity_to_ours": "high/medium",
  "citation_count": [N]
}

---

Step 2: BUILD Differentiation Matrix

Matrix Structure

Build a table comparing the competitor papers against YOUR paper across key dimensions:

## Differentiation Matrix

| Dimension | Our Paper | [Author1 (Year)] | [Author2 (Year)] | [Author3 (Year)] | ... |
|-----------|-----------|-------------------|-------------------|-------------------|-----|
| **Research Question** | [our RQ] | [their RQ] | [their RQ] | [their RQ] | |
| **Theoretical Lens** | [our theory] | [their theory] | [their theory] | [their theory] | |
| **Method** | [our method] | [their method] | [their method] | [their method] | |
| **Context/Sample** | [our context] | [their context] | [their context] | [their context] | |
| **Time Period** | [our period] | [their period] | [their period] | [their period] | |
| **Technology Focus** | [our tech] | [their tech] | [their tech] | [their tech] | |
| **Unit of Analysis** | [our UoA] | [their UoA] | [their UoA] | [their UoA] | |
| **Key Contribution** | [our contribution] | [their contribution] | [their contribution] | [their contribution] | |
| **Scope** | [our scope] | [their scope] | [their scope] | [their scope] | |

Dimension Selection

Choose 6-10 dimensions that are most relevant for differentiation. Common dimensions:

Dimension	When to Use
Research Question / Objective	Always
Theoretical Lens	When theory is a differentiator
Method	When method is a differentiator
Context / Industry / Sample	When context is new
Time Period / Technology Generation	When recency matters
Level of Analysis (individual, team, org, industry)	When level differs
Unit of Analysis	When what's being studied differs
Geographic / Cultural Context	For cross-cultural studies
Dependent Variables / Outcomes	When outcomes differ
Stage of Adoption / Maturity	For implementation studies
Practitioner vs. Academic Focus	For applied research

---

Step 3: ANALYZE Positioning

Gap Identification

From the differentiation matrix, identify:

1. Unique dimensions: Where does our paper differ from ALL competitors?

   • These are the strongest positioning arguments

2. Underrepresented combinations: What combination of dimensions is new?

   • Even if individual dimensions are not new, the combination may be

3. Temporal advantage: What has changed since the competitors published?

   • New technology, new phenomena, new policy context

4. Methodological gap: What method has NOT been applied to this topic?

   • E.g., many surveys, no case studies; many qualitative, no quantitative

5. Contextual gap: What context has NOT been studied?

   • E.g., many US studies, no European context; many large enterprises, no SMEs

Positioning Patterns

Classify the paper's positioning into one or more patterns:

Pattern	Description	Strength
New phenomenon	Studies something that didn't exist before	Very strong
New context	Applies known theories to unstudied context	Strong
New method	Uses a method not yet applied to this topic	Strong
New theory	Applies a theory not yet used for this topic	Medium-Strong
Integration	Combines previously separate research streams	Medium
Replication	Tests prior findings in new setting	Medium
Update	Revisits topic after significant change	Medium
Deeper	Goes beyond surface-level prior work	Depends on execution

---

Step 4: GENERATE Positioning Statement

Positioning Paragraph Template

Generate a paragraph that can be directly inserted into the Introduction (Gap section) or Related Work:

While prior work has made important contributions to understanding [topic],
significant opportunities for advancement remain. Table [N] compares our study
to the most closely related work. [Author1] (Year) [their focus], but [key
difference from our paper]. Similarly, [Author2] (Year) [their contribution],
yet [what they don't address that we do]. [Author3] (Year) comes closest to
our work in [dimension], but differs in [key differentiator: method/context/theory].

Our study extends this body of work in [N] key ways. First, [unique dimension 1].
While prior studies have [what they did], we [what we do differently]. Second,
[unique dimension 2]. Third, [unique dimension 3, if applicable].

Contribution Refinement

Based on the positioning analysis, refine the contribution statement:

## Refined Contribution Statement

Based on the positioning analysis, the paper's unique contribution is:

1. **[Contribution 1]** — This is unique because no prior study has [specific gap].
   Closest competitor: [Author (Year)] who [what they did, but not this].

2. **[Contribution 2]** — This extends [theory/method] by [specific extension].
   Unlike [Author (Year)] who [their approach], we [our approach].

3. **[Contribution 3]** — Practical contribution: [specific practical value].
   This goes beyond [Author (Year)]'s [their practical contribution] by [how].

---

Step 5: SAVE Output

Output File: positioning_analysis.md

# Positioning Analysis

**Paper:** [title]
**Date:** [ISO 8601]
**Competitors analyzed:** [N]

## Closest Competitors

[Brief 2-3 sentence description of each competitor paper]

## Differentiation Matrix

[Full matrix from Step 2]

## Positioning Assessment

### Unique Dimensions
[List dimensions where our paper is unique]

### Positioning Pattern
[Classified pattern from Step 3]

### Strongest Differentiators
1. [Differentiator 1 — why it matters]
2. [Differentiator 2 — why it matters]
3. [Differentiator 3 — why it matters]

### Potential Reviewer Challenges
[Anticipated "but Author X already did this" objections + prepared responses]

## Draft Positioning Paragraph
[Ready-to-insert paragraph from Step 4]

## Refined Contribution Statement
[Updated contribution claims from Step 4]

## Recommended Actions
- [ ] Insert differentiation table into Related Work section
- [ ] Update Introduction gap paragraph with positioning language
- [ ] Refine contribution statement in Introduction
- [ ] Add competitor comparison to Discussion section

---

Error Recovery

• No clearly similar papers found: The paper may be highly novel (good!) or the search was too narrow. Expand search to adjacent topics.
• Too many similar papers (>10): Focus on the 5 most similar. Group the rest into clusters.
• Paper appears to have no unique contribution: Flag this honestly. Suggest ways to differentiate: new context, updated data, different method, integrative perspective.
• Competitor paper discovered that is very close: This is valuable information! Better to discover this now than during review. Help the user explicitly differentiate.

---

Integration

Scenario	Integration
Phase 2 (Framing)	Positioning analysis sharpens gap + contribution
Theory-engine	Theory selection informed by what competitors used
Writing-engine	Positioning paragraph for Introduction/Related Work
Peer-review-engine	Anticipates reviewer objections about novelty
Review-engine	Responds to "how is this different from X?" reviewer comments