RFA Brand Audit
- Version
- v1
- Compiled
- 2026-08-11
- Prepared for
- Kristian Hill and Eilidh Sutherland
- Prepared by
- Unforged
What this is
a read of RFA's public surfaces and Instagram output, done from outside, with no account access and nothing asked of either of you.
S0
Why this audit, why now
RFA has built the storefront. The engine underneath it is not built yet.
We looked at what any stranger can look at. Two public grids, both biographies, the brand site, the diagnostic and every link either profile publishes. No account access, no Insights, no respondent data, nothing asked of you.
- Posts scored
-
eilidhsutherland.rfa
171 n=171
kristianhill.rfa
190 n=190
- Followers at the snapshot
-
eilidhsutherland.rfa
3268 n=1 snapshot
kristianhill.rfa
8031 n=1 snapshot
- Share of published output covered
-
eilidhsutherland.rfa
16.6 percent n=173
kristianhill.rfa
6.6 percent n=193
Analysed window
- eilidhsutherland.rfa 2025-04-28 to 2026-07-28
- kristianhill.rfa 2025-03-21 to 2026-08-04
One finding runs through the whole document. On the analysed window eilidhsutherland.rfa runs at 1.44 percent of followers on median likes across 171 posts, while kristianhill.rfa runs at 0.49 percent across 190 posts (N-11, N-37). The smaller account by follower count, 3268 against 8031, is the stronger asset per follower by 2.9x (N-06, N-11, N-32, N-37). That is a fact about two accounts. It is not a verdict about two people.
RFA owns a domain, a built site, a lead magnet on a branded subdomain, a list with a nine day sequence, a booking layer and tracking. The gaps sit further in than that, and they are finer. None of what follows is a mistake. It is architecture nobody has built yet.
- S0 RFA has built the storefront. The engine underneath it is not built yet.
- S1 Of the five steps we build, RFA already runs part of four.
- S2 A stranger who meets either profile learns an outcome, not what RFA is or who it is for.
- S3 RFA describes its buyer sharply. The problem is where that description sits, not that it is missing.
- S4 The smaller account is the stronger asset per follower, and nearly all joint output is filed on the larger one.
- S5 Both accounts run the same engine format, and one of them has a second engine the other does not.
- S6 Every part a funnel needs is live. What is missing is what happens between the score and the call.
- S7 Four gaps, and none of them is a mistake. They are the parts of the architecture nobody built yet.
- S8 Five of the moves cost nothing and can be done this week without us.
- S9 If we build together, this is the list.
- S10 What is left is a short list of questions, and none of them is about money.
How to read the ids
N-01 to N-57 is a figure, carrying its formula and its sample size. L1-01 to L5-12 is an analytical finding that survived an adversarial pass. A-01 upward is a rendered or live status fact about a surface. S1 to S13 is a live surface checked on the scrape date.
Where the ids sit
A figure carries its id where it appears, and every section closes with the full evidence list behind it. The registry those ids resolve to is available on request.
Evidence: N-02, N-03, N-04, N-05, N-06, N-11, N-28, N-29, N-30, N-31, N-32, N-37, S1, S2, S3, S4
S1
Where RFA stands today
Of the five steps we build, RFA already runs part of four.
Our build has five steps. This is where each one stands, read only from what a stranger can reach.
| Step | Eilidh | Kristian | RFA as a brand |
|---|---|---|---|
| Step one Audit | Eilidh partial, the same instrument, from her bio link (S10) | Kristian partial, the scored diagnostic runs from his bio link (S6) | RFA as a brand partial, one instrument, three addresses, one sequence (A-23, A-24) |
| Step two Brand identity | Eilidh built, named on the site with the other coach (L3-06), the credential descriptor sits in the display name (L3-07) | Kristian partial, named on the site with the other coach (L3-06), no credential descriptor in the display name (L3-07) | RFA as a brand partial, the .rfa suffix is decoded on the brand site alone (L3-05) |
| Step three Landing page and funnel | Eilidh built, the same surfaces, published from her bio (S10, S11, S12) | Kristian built, apex, branded subdomain, gate and booking layer (S1, S2, S4) | RFA as a brand built, thirteen of thirteen surfaces resolved on the check date, five through one http redirect (S1 to S13) |
| Step four Content plan | Eilidh partial, 16 active months at a median 10.0 posts (N-46, N-47) | Kristian partial, 18 active months at a median 12.0 posts (N-20, N-21) | RFA as a brand not visible from outside, no shared publishing pattern reads off the two grids |
| Step five Production and client database | Eilidh partial, the same capture from the same page (L2-06) | Kristian partial, only a first name and an email leave the page (L2-06) | RFA as a brand not visible from outside, the ten profile answers are computed and discarded (L2-06) |
Nine things RFA built that this audit does not ask you to touch.
-
A branded apex domain.
rfacoaching.com, live, with zero redirects on the check date (S1, A-17).
-
A branded subdomain for the lead magnet.
audit.rfacoaching.com serves the diagnostic on RFA's own name (S2).
-
A list and a nine day sequence.
The gate subscribes each new address to a Kit form and a nine day sequence (S3).
-
A booking layer, reachable from the result screen.
One click from the score to a live Calendly page (S4, L1-11).
-
Tracking on the funnel.
An analytics property is wired into the page head, so the traffic is already measurable (S3).
-
A scored six pillar instrument.
RFA already publishes the kind of diagnostic this audit would otherwise recommend building (L1-12).
-
Sidecar carries the engine verdict on both grids.
It is also the format both grids are mostly made of (N-13, N-39).
-
Collaboration posts sit above solo posts on his grid, and on her five collab rows.
On hers, 62 collab, 47.0 solo, and on his, 71.0 collab, 37.0 solo (N-23, N-24, N-48, N-49, N-50).
-
Two multi-link bio setups.
Four published links on her profile, three on his, all live (S6, S7, S8, S10, S11, S12, S13). Only the order changes later.
Evidence: N-13, N-20, N-21, N-23, N-24, N-39, N-46, N-47, N-48, N-49, N-50, L1-11, L1-12, L2-06, L3-05, L3-06, L3-07, A-17, A-23, A-24, S1, S2, S3, S4, S6, S7, S8, S10, S11, S12, S13
S2
Perceived identity, what the public sees
A stranger who meets either profile learns an outcome, not what RFA is or who it is for.
| What a visitor meets | Eilidh | Kristian | The delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Followers | Eilidh 3268 | Kristian 8031 | The delta he carries the larger audience (N-06, N-32), hers engages harder per follower (N-11, N-37) |
| Display name | Eilidh Eilz Sutherland plus a credential descriptor | Kristian Kristian Hill, no credential descriptor | The delta Four of twelve measured comparables carry one (L3-07) |
| Bio line one | Eilidh a story statement, no role noun | Kristian a value statement, no role noun | The delta neither names the buyer the brand site addresses (L2-09) |
| What the bio promises | Eilidh a body and a life with no limits | Kristian looking elite, energy, a life that runs on ease | The delta an outcome on both profiles, a category on neither |
| Primary bio link | Eilidh the raw Netlify host, published over https (S10) | Kristian the raw Netlify host, published over http (S6) | The delta the branded host is live and sits one slot lower on both (S7, S11) |
| Secondary bio links | Eilidh three, one of them not RFA property (S11, S12, S13) | Kristian two, both RFA surfaces (S7, S8) | The delta the four secondary links to RFA surfaces are all published over http |
| Story highlight sets | Eilidh eight (S9) | Kristian two (S5) | The delta four times as many standing entry points on hers |
| Account category | Eilidh none published (S9) | Kristian Personal Coach (S5) | The delta a public role label on one profile only |
A stranger who lands on either profile reads a display name, one bio line and a link.
Eilz Sutherland | Health Performance Coach
Instagram biography, eilidhsutherland.rfa, verbatim (S9)
Eating disorder survivor to 2:58 marathon runner & world traveller🏃♀️🌎 Helping you build a body & life with no limits! Complete FREE audit👇
The display name already carries the credential descriptor (L3-07). The bio promises an outcome and names no category, which is the same shape as his. Her following and follower counts sit at parity, within about one percent either way (L3-12). Her three sampled captions define their reader by eating behaviour (L2-10).
Kristian Hill
Instagram biography, kristianhill.rfa, verbatim (S5)
I show people how to look elite, feel full of energy and build a life that runs on ease instead of exhaustion FREE audit👇
The display name carries no credential descriptor. The bio promises an outcome and names no category, so the first screen never says what RFA sells.
The .rfa suffix is decoded on the brand site alone and on neither profile (L3-05). The one asset a prospect meets before buying carries four different names across the surfaces that lead to it (L3-04). Both primary bio links resolve to the raw Netlify hostname, while the branded host serves the identical page from the secondary list (L5-12). The two coach split is legible on the brand site alone (L3-06). Both follow ratios are surface mechanics and nothing more.
Reading
Both profiles sell an outcome. Neither names the category, the buyer or the second coach.
Gap
The first screen of the brand does not say what the brand is.
Move
Put the category into one display name and one bio line, and promote the branded host into the primary link slot on both profiles.
Evidence: N-06, N-11, N-32, N-37, L2-09, L2-10, L3-04, L3-05, L3-06, L3-07, L3-12, L5-12, S5, S6, S7, S8, S9, S10, S11, S12, S13
S3
Intended identity, what RFA says it is
RFA describes its buyer sharply. The problem is where that description sits, not that it is missing.
RFA's own words, quoted as they render. Client dashes are reproduced inside these blocks.
Founders, executives, and high performers in their 30s and 40s who have built something impressive on the outside but feel like something underneath isn't quite right. You're successful by most measures. But the walls are crumbling privately.
More freedom. More success. More energy. All at once.
We work with people who are wired differently — to finally feel as good as they look, perform at a level that actually means something, and build a life that runs on ease instead of exhaustion. Without the suffering.
eilidhsutherland.rfa
Eating disorder survivor to 2:58 marathon runner & world traveller🏃♀️🌎
kristianhill.rfa
I show people how to look elite, feel full of energy and build a life that runs on ease instead of exhaustion
The table below is the buyer this audit graded against. It is our reading of RFA's own published buyer definition, not a claim about intent, because neither of you has been asked.
| What the buyer needs | Where they meet it today | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| bio line one names the load this buyer carries | neither biography names the buyer the brand site addresses (L2-09) | Verdictabsent |
| the buyer's own situation named above the audience cards | the hero promises three outcomes, the audience cards sit further down (L1-01, L1-02, A-01) | Verdictpartial |
| the buyer named before the email is asked for | the gate card quoted above names them (A-16) | Verdictaligned |
| a separation between the loaded operator and the solo starter | five of the ten profile questions measure load, none asks occupation (L2-02, L2-03) | Verdictpartial |
| the pillars carrying this buyer's load weighted highest | all six score on one scale, and a completely flat answer set still produces a single ranked recommendation (L5-08) | Verdictpartial |
| the tier that carries the identity work the copy points at | identity work first appears in the middle tier (L3-09) | Verdictpartial |
| the pillar the category claim rests on is purchasable | no inclusion line at any tier names the nervous system (L3-10) | Verdictabsent |
| proof from someone carrying the same load, met before the ask | five named client stories render below the programmes block and its booking ask (A-03, A-04) | Verdictpartial |
| what happens after the score, and what the work is week to week | the run computes six scores and discards them, and the result screen offers one next step (L1-10, L1-11) | Verdictabsent |
| the profile answers, so the addressed buyer can be checked against the real one | the ten answers are computed in the browser and discarded (L2-06) | Verdictabsent |
| a stated relationship between the second coach's reader and the three tiers | her surfaces address a reader the tier lines do not name (L2-08, L2-09, L2-10) | Verdictunknown |
| a nurture path carrying the same buyer definition as the gate | unseen, the nine day sequence lives inside your own account | Verdictunknown |
The two unknown rows travel to the closing section as questions. They are not counted as gaps.
The category claim carries two different problem nouns on one page, a state problem in one line and a nervous system problem in the next (L3-01). The nervous system frame is category language in this peer set rather than a token RFA owns, because one of the twelve measured comparables already carries it in the display name (L3-02).
- Reading
- The sharpest description of the buyer sits on the diagnostic's landing screen (A-16).
- Gap
- Every surface that carries a stranger there opens on an outcome, with the sharp description further down or absent.
- Move
- Lift the gate card's first sentence onto the brand site hero and into both bio lines.
Evidence: L1-01, L1-02, L1-07, L1-10, L1-11, L2-01, L2-02, L2-03, L2-06, L2-07, L2-08, L2-09, L2-10, L3-01, L3-02, L3-09, L3-10, L5-08, A-01, A-03, A-04, A-06, A-16, S5, S9
S4
The duo split
The smaller account is the stronger asset per follower, and nearly all joint output is filed on the larger one.
| eilidhsutherland.rfa | kristianhill.rfa | |
|---|---|---|
| Followers | 3268 n=1 snapshot | 8031 n=1 snapshot |
| Likes median | 47 n=171 | 39.0 n=190 |
| Comments median | 2 n=171 | 1.0 n=190 |
| Engagement rate, median likes over followers | 1.44 percent n=171 | 0.49 percent n=190 |
| Comment rate, median comments over followers | 0.06 percent n=171 | 0.01 percent n=190 |
| eilidhsutherland.rfa | kristianhill.rfa | |
|---|---|---|
| Posts naming the other as coauthor | 4 n=scored sets | 28 n=scored sets |
| Collab and solo split | 5 collab, 166 solo n=171 | 32 collab, 158 solo n=190 |
| Likes median, collab against solo | 62 collab, 47.0 solo n=5 and 166 | 71.0 collab, 37.0 solo n=32 and 158 |
| Lift ratio | 1.32x n=5 and 166 | 1.92x n=32 and 158 |
One shared total. The split is where the joint work is filed, not who did it.
The lift on his grid is an association inside this window, not a causal claim about collaborating. Her collab set is small enough that her ratio carries no pattern claim at all (L4-09).
156 distinct commenters were observed on his rows and 137 on hers, with 47 seen on both (N-53, N-54, N-55). Both counts are floors, bounded by how many comments the scrape returned per post. Most of each observed public appears on one account only (L2-11).
Kristian is named in a one to one line at all three tiers, at monthly, bi-weekly and weekly frequency (L3-08). Eilidh is named in no one to one line at any tier. The counter-evidence sits in the same block, because the every client lines and the top tier's weekly access line name both (L2-08). This is how the ladder is written. It is not a statement about who does the work.
reading
RFA runs two audiences behind one storefront, and the smaller one earns more attention per follower.
gap
The duo is the brand's strongest structural asset, and the published surfaces describe it from one side.
move
Consider filing the next joint post on her grid, and name both coaches in the tier lines that already include both.
Evidence: N-06, N-07, N-10, N-11, N-12, N-22, N-23, N-24, N-32, N-33, N-36, N-37, N-38, N-48, N-49, N-50, N-53, N-54, N-55, N-56, N-57, L2-08, L2-11, L3-08, L4-09, L4-10
S5
The content engine, side by side
Both accounts run the same engine format, and one of them has a second engine the other does not.
A format counts as an engine only with at least five scored posts, at least two of them at or above twice that account's own median, and a format median at or above it.
eilidhsutherland.rfa
Sidecar is an engine.
N-39 n 112, likes median 54.0, 1.15x own median, verdict engine
Image is not an engine.
N-40 n 40, likes median 38.0, 0.81x own median, verdict not_engine
Video is not an engine.
N-41 n 19, likes median 52, 1.11x own median, verdict not_engine
kristianhill.rfa
Sidecar is an engine.
N-13 n 145, likes median 40, 1.03x own median, verdict engine
Image is not an engine.
N-14 n 32, likes median 32.0, 0.82x own median, verdict not_engine
Video is an engine.
N-15 n 13, likes median 78, 2.0x own median, verdict engine
Hairline marks own median. Each account is drawn on its own scale.
Sidecar carries the verdict on both accounts, and it is also what both grids are mostly made of (L4-01). Video is the one format that splits them (L4-02).
| Measure | eilidhsutherland.rfa | kristianhill.rfa |
|---|---|---|
| Active months | 16 | 18 |
| Posts per month, median | 10.0 | 12.0 |
Pinned posts are excluded from every figure in this section, so this is posting behaviour and not grid order.
His top post by likes carries 647 likes, 16.59x his own median (N-19). The same post carries 199040 plays against a play median of 5073, which the script classifies as one event rather than a repeatable expectation (N-17, N-18, L4-05). That reel runs a licensed music bed, the transcription returned no spoken word, and the on screen text was never extracted (L4-06). No claim is made about which message carried the big one. Hers carries 982 likes, 20.89x her own median, and no play data, so her multiple is a likes reading only (N-45).
Play data exists on a subset of rows only: 19 of all rows, 19 of scored rows on hers, 14 of all rows, 13 of scored rows on his (N-16, N-42). Every play figure above therefore describes that subset only (L4-04).
On his account, 11 posts carry a tags field, 12 tags in total (N-25). A field audit on hers leaves two posts and two tags once a parse artefact is removed (L4-12). Neither account puts three or more tags into a first comment (N-26, N-52). This is an observation about absent discovery intent. It is not a lever, and no tag strategy is recommended anywhere in this document.
0 posts with 3 or more tags, out of 121 non-empty first comments on hers. 0 posts with 3 or more tags, out of 136 non-empty first comments on his.
Reading
Both accounts already publish an engine format most.
Gap
Output is not the constraint. Nothing downstream of a post keeps the attention a post earns.
Move
Keep Sidecar as the base on both grids, and treat video on his as the second format the test already backs (N-15).
Evidence: N-13, N-14, N-15, N-16, N-17, N-18, N-19, N-20, N-21, N-25, N-26, N-39, N-40, N-41, N-42, N-45, N-46, N-47, N-52, L4-01, L4-02, L4-04, L4-05, L4-06, L4-12
S6
The funnel, surface by surface
Every part a funnel needs is live. What is missing is what happens between the score and the call.
RFA runs a complete funnel. Thirteen of thirteen surfaces resolved on the check date, five through one http redirect (S1 to S13).
Brand site
rfacoaching.com (S1)
owned
Lead magnet, branded
audit.rfacoaching.com (S2)
owned
Lead magnet, raw host
the Netlify hostname (S3)
owned deploy on a rented name
List and nine day sequence
a Kit form and its sequence (S3)
owned
Booking
Calendly (S4)
owned
Measurement
an analytics property on the funnel (S3)
owned
Audience
two Instagram profiles (S5, S9)
rented
Entry points
four bio links on her profile, three on his (S6 to S8, S10 to S13)
rented placement, owned targets except S13
The run keeps nothing. Scores and all twenty five answers are computed in the browser and discarded, the result has no URL, and a reload returns an empty gate (L1-10, L5-10, L2-06).
One deploy answers on two hostnames, and the primary bio link on both profiles points at the unbranded one while the branded equivalent sits one slot lower (L5-12, S6, S7, S10, S11).
All seven of the brand site's relative targets resolve, and its own diagnostic button lands on a third copy of the instrument feeding the same sequence (A-09, A-23, A-24). On a phone the brand site widens the viewport past the device width, so the page renders smaller than it specifies (A-13).
The visitor's path, in rendered order: the gate collects a first name and an email before any question renders (L1-09), then ten profile questions, then fifteen diagnostic questions, then a result screen with one clickable next step (L1-11, L2-05).
| Promise | Renders |
|---|---|
| thirty diagnostic questions L1-08 | fifteen, one per screen |
| eight minutes L1-08 | about five, stated at the gate |
| Professional Leadership A-16, rendered walkthrough | PROFESSIONAL in the results grid |
| a completion label on the last question L5-03 | the same next label on every screen, because the completion label is gated on an index this flow never reaches |
| a fully personalised breakdown A-16, rendered walkthrough | conditional, three observations for a loaded profile and none for a neutral one |
No tier inclusion line names the nervous system, the pillar the category claim rests on (L3-10, L2-07). None of the seven brand site terms appears in the funnel, the surface both primary bio links resolve to (L3-03).
RFA already publishes an audit style lead magnet that scores six named pillars and ends on a booking link (L1-12). Nothing in this document recommends building one.
The funnel loads an analytics tag and collects an email while the rendered landing and result screens carry no privacy notice, cookie banner, terms link or consent control (L5-11). That question sits in the closing section.
Two more stay questions, because both live inside accounts we cannot see: whether the Netlify Forms backup is registered, and what the nine day sequence says.
Reading
The mechanics are built. What the run produces does not survive the run.
Gap
Between the score and the call there is one link and nothing else.
Move
Give the result its own address, and serve it from the branded host.
Evidence: L1-08, L1-09, L1-10, L1-11, L1-12, L2-05, L2-06, L2-07, L3-03, L3-10, L5-03, L5-10, L5-11, L5-12, A-09, A-13, A-16, A-23, A-24, S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8, S9, S10, S11, S12, S13
S7
Where the gaps are
Four gaps, and none of them is a mistake. They are the parts of the architecture nobody built yet.
-
The pillar the whole claim rests on is the one no tier sells
No tier inclusion line names the nervous system, regulation, breathwork or somatic work (L3-10). The site's own copy names it as the reader's problem (L2-07).
- Reading
- The category claim and the purchase ladder are written in two vocabularies.
- Gap
- The pillar the brand asks to be judged on has no line a client can buy.
- Move
- Name the regulation work inside the entry tier's own inclusion list.
-
The first screen a stranger meets names neither the buyer nor the brand
Neither biography names the buyer the site addresses (L2-09). The acronym is decoded on the brand site alone (L3-05), and both primary links resolve to an address bar with no brand in it (L5-12).
- Reading
- The brand is legible on the one surface a stranger reaches last.
- Gap
- The first screen carries an outcome where the category and the name should be.
- Move
- Put the category into bio line one and the branded host into the primary slot.
-
The run ends with a score and keeps nothing
Scores and answers are computed and discarded, the result has no URL, and a reload returns an empty gate (L1-10, L5-10). The brand site still describes a thirty question version of the instrument (L1-08).
- Reading
- The instrument does the hard part and then drops the output.
- Gap
- Nothing between the score and the call holds a lead who is not ready today.
- Move
- Store the result, and send it to the address the gate already collects.
-
The duo is one brand on one surface only
The two coach split is legible on the brand site alone (L3-06), and joint output sits almost entirely on one grid (L4-10). One partner is named in a one to one line at all three tiers and the other in none, while the every client block names both (L3-08, L2-08).
- Reading
- Two coaches are visible in one place and one coach everywhere else.
- Gap
- The strongest structural asset RFA has is described from one side.
- Move
- Name both coaches where the ladder already includes both.
Evidence: L1-08, L1-10, L2-07, L2-08, L2-09, L2-11, L3-04, L3-05, L3-06, L3-07, L3-08, L3-10, L4-10, L5-10, L5-12
S8
What to do, in order
Five of the moves cost nothing and can be done this week without us.
Do these yourself, this week
- Decode RFA in bio line one on both profiles. It is decoded on the brand site alone (L3-05). No cost.
- Add a credential descriptor to Kristian's display name, so the first screen names the category. Four of twelve measured comparables carry one, and Eilidh's already does (L3-07). No cost.
- Point the primary bio link on both profiles at the branded host over https. Today both point at the raw Netlify name (L5-12, S6, S7, S10, S11). No cost.
- Align the brand site's diagnostic block with the live gate: fifteen questions and about five minutes, not thirty and eight (L1-08). No cost.
- Give the diagnostic one name. It carries four across the surfaces that lead to it (L3-04). No cost.
The bigger moves
-
Name the regulation work in the entry tier's inclusion lines, so the pillar the category claim rests on can be bought (L3-10).
A copy change RFA can make alone.
-
Name both coaches where the ladder and the first screens already carry both (L3-06, L3-08).
A copy change RFA can make alone.
-
Give the result its own address, so a finished run leaves something to keep (L1-10, L5-10).
A build on the diagnostic, for whoever built it.
Evidence: L1-08, L1-10, L3-04, L3-05, L3-06, L3-07, L3-08, L3-10, L5-10, L5-12, S6, S7, S10, S11
S9
What we would build with you
If we build together, this is the list.
Commercial terms are not part of this document and sit with Caspar directly.
Nothing here repeats the five self-serve moves above.
| Step | What we would build | What it replaces or adds |
|---|---|---|
| Step two Brand identity | What we would build one category line per profile, carried through the site and the diagnostic | What it replaces or adds replaces an outcome where the category should be |
| Step three Landing page and funnel | What we would build a result page with its own address on the branded host | What it replaces or adds adds a destination the run can leave behind |
| Step four Content plan | What we would build a publishing plan per account built on the format each grid already wins with, plus a named place for joint output | What it replaces or adds adds sequence to output that already runs |
| Step five Production and client database | What we would build the profile and diagnostic answers held in RFA's own database, with the nurture path written against them | What it replaces or adds adds the record the run currently discards |
Evidence: L1-08, L1-10, L2-06, L3-04, L3-05, L4-01, L4-10, L5-10, L5-12
S10
What we still need from you
What is left is a short list of questions, and none of them is about money.
-
What audience Eilidh's surfaces are meant for, which settles whether RFA addresses one buyer or two.
Through Caspar, as a conversation.
-
What the nine day sequence says after capture, which settles whether it carries the gate's buyer definition.
Later.
-
An Instagram Insights export from both accounts, the only source of reach, saves and demographics.
Available now.
-
The respondent profiles the diagnostic has collected, so the buyer it attracts can be checked against the buyer the copy addresses.
Later.
-
How a tier gets chosen on the discovery call, which settles where a score lands in the ladder.
Available now.
-
Two things only you can see: whether the Netlify Forms backup is registered, and how you want to handle the consent question from the funnel section.
Available now.
- No reach, impressions, saves or shares. None of it exists in public data.
- No growth or trend claim. This is one snapshot, not two.
- No external performance benchmark, because no comparable's engagement was measured with this method. The twelve comparables were read structurally only.
- No claim about either account before its window start.
- No clinical or physiological claim of ours.
- No claim about the nine day sequence, which we have not seen.
- No claim about respondent data, which we do not have.
Evidence: L1-10, L2-06, L2-08, L2-09, L2-10, L5-11