# Canvas, audience and decision draft before implementation

## Source-derived common adult persona

The full persona workbook index and dynamic app.js were read. Its eight questionnaire groups cover situation, relationship to speech, concrete problem scenes, communication, desired outcome, obstacles, solution levels and offer. The common adult is busy and wants the listener to follow the meaning in calls, meetings, teaching or recordings. They describe the situation as “I know what I want to say, but I would like my speech to carry it more clearly and naturally.” This is a composite hypothesis, not a customer quotation.

The workbook reports teacher voice use and avoiding playback as stronger source signals. The weights of roles, emotions, channel performance and behaviour remain hypotheses. Recognition, curiosity, uncertainty about sharing video and concern about time are plausible feelings to test, not a diagnosis. Desired progress is noticing a specific practice focus, completing realistic practice, using feedback and discussing what still needs development.

Matt's daily personal feedback pilot supersedes the older workbook preference for less supervision. We keep its situational, respectful communication and source boundaries.

## Proposed broad Meta test

Hungary, adult audience 18+, Hungarian creative and Hungarian destination. Advantage+ broad audience without profession-based interest subdivisions. Automatic placements as a proposed initial comparison, with square feed assets supplied here and further placement crops to be prepared in the acquisition execution. Confirm actual audience controls, reachable geography, exclusions, placement eligibility, budget and tracking in that later loop. No settings or campaign have been activated. Exclude paid cohort participants from cohort sales reminders, and suppress non-consenting marketing recipients in the demonstration.

Compare the free-video and direct-challenge paths by completed next task, subsequent qualified interest and eventual paid participation. Click rate alone cannot pick the winning promise. Role scenes differentiate creative recognition while keeping one broad audience. No invented Value Equation scores: desired practical progress, believable personal delivery, time and friction are the qualitative lenses.

## Spatial review wireframe

Top row left to right: introduction → 20 ad choices → free A/B → free video/consent → receipt → sample feedback → A/B emails and consent states → challenge A/B → checkout branches → confirmation/access → demo entry/overview → day 1 through day 14 → consultation.

Second row: 14 Rita review panels aligned exactly below participant day IDs. Each column shares day context. Side-by-side A/B inspection stays at 390 CSS pixels per customer frame. The outer review canvas may use ordinary review dimensions.

Retain the actual supplied CC Klíma source's scrollable viewport, transformed world, anchored zoom, pan, fit, jump and disclosure/full versus interactive behavior. Add a complete searchable index and an inspector that restores the same canvas position. Only the outer canvas carries comments.

## Concrete criticism and correction

A long vertical report makes a reviewer reconstruct the journey. A fully expanded huge iframe row becomes unreadable when fitted to screen. Therefore use a clear recommended order, fixed mobile preview windows, optional full inspection, alternatives beside the step rather than detached, nearby short reasoning, and daily Rita columns aligned on a fixed second row. Essential text stays available at full scale. Pan is a review tool, never a customer's navigation burden.

## Stage reasoning

| Stage | Before, attention and interpretation | Objection and next useful thought | Communication correction |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Ads | Everyday situation → own speech → concrete offer | Is this relevant? I can examine one next step. | Natural situation first, no professional name or operational claim as hook. |
| Free landing | Curiosity → what to send → personal feedback | Will recording be difficult? I know what to do and what follows. | Show camera guidance and a truthful sample without promising results. |
| Free upload | Ready but uncertain → local demo video/consent | Did something really upload? I can distinguish prototype submission and real service. | Deliberate action, honest local-only result, marketing separate. |
| Feedback and nurture | Submitted → observation → next focus | Is this generic sales pressure? The programme follows a useful first observation. | Start follow-up after feedback, not before an unseen video. |
| Challenge landing | Seeking structure → practice load → daily loop → price proposal | Can I sustain this? I understand work and personal support. | Six source topics, daily proposed organization, no instant cure. |
| Checkout/access | Chosen offer → amount/inclusions → simulated result | What will I receive? Success leads to coherent access. | No real charge or enrolment claim, cancellation retains origin. |
| Daily participant | Progress → first task → rationale → complete practice → reflection/video | What exactly do I do today? I can finish and know when feedback becomes available. | Preserve full source words, group controls at useful moments. |
| Rita review | Day/source/reflection/video → observation → next focus → draft/send | Does this match this participant/day? My response reaches the matching local view. | Context-bound demo send and exact readback, no diagnoses. |
| Consultation | Final practice → preparation → demo booking → next-step discussion | Does two weeks complete development? We review observations and choose further work. | Early reservation for a post-challenge call, no invented real slot or meeting link. |