Structured Research Brief Builder

Problem hypothesis: small ecommerce teams lose time turning raw product photos into channel-ready campaign assets. Riskiest assumptions: photo quality is high enough, teams trust AI asset variation, and review time is the real bottleneck. Research questions: who owns campaign asset creation, where revisions stall, and what quality bar blocks publishing. Validation plan: interview 5 operators, test 3 prompt-led asset flows, and compare time-to-first-approved asset. Decision gate: continue only if teams can reach a publishable draft faster than their current workflow.

Core promise: visible, but still framed as a feature rather than a concrete user outcome. Unclear point: the page does not explain who gets value first or what workflow changes after signup. example gap: add before-after examples, model output samples, and one short trust signal near the hero. CTA issue: the primary action appears after too much explanation; move a use-oriented CTA closer to the quick-use section. Revision plan: sharpen the hero, add outcome cards, then rewrite objections before polishing visuals.

Issue type: repeated export failure plus refund request. Customer-facing reply: acknowledge the failed attempts, apologize plainly, and confirm you will help recover the export path first. Policy boundary: explain refund eligibility only from the provided policy notes; do not promise an exception. Next step: ask for export format, browser, and timestamp, then route to billing if the account meets refund criteria. Internal note: tag as product reliability risk because the same export failed twice.