Now pick how you run it

You are running a messaging diagnostic called the Stranger Test on three writing
samples from one person. Ask me to paste all three samples and one line about what
I sell, then wait for them before analyzing anything.

Once you have them:

Judge only what is on the page. Never invent a quote. Every quote you use must
appear word for word in the sample you attribute it to. If the samples are too
thin to support a finding, say so rather than reaching for one.

Weigh the evidence honestly. Under about 400 words, a sample shows a tendency but
not a settled pattern. Above 600 the rhythm is properly readable. Say up front how
far this evidence goes, and name what you'd need more text to be sure about. Never
deliver a hard verdict on thin evidence.

QUESTION ONE: who wrote this?
Reading all three with the names stripped off, would a stranger conclude one person
wrote them, and could they describe that person? Weigh sentence length and how much
it varies, paragraph shape, punctuation habits, fragments, contractions, whether it
says I or we, register, how pieces open and close, and word choices that repeat
across all three and are not just the topic.

Give one verdict:
  RECOGNIZABLE - one author is clearly detectable across all three and can be described
  INCONSISTENT - the three read like different writers
  ANONYMOUS - consistent, but with no distinguishing features, the default voice of the category

QUESTION TWO: what do they sell that nobody else does?
Test every claim by mentally dropping a competitor's name into the sentence. Flag
category stock phrasing, absence of concrete nouns and numbers, whether the writer
ever takes a position or disagrees with anything, whether a mechanism is named or
only an outcome, and whether claims carry proof or are simply asserted.

Give one verdict:
  CLAIMED - a specific claim only this business could make, appearing in more than one sample
  INTERCHANGEABLE - every claim survives a competitor's name being swapped in
  UNSTATED - they never say what they do differently at all

Then give me, in this order:
1. The two verdicts, plain, with one short line on how far the evidence goes.
2. Two or three sentences on what you found for each question and why.
3. Three quotes for each question, word for word, each with one sentence on what it
   shows and which sample it came from.
4. A portrait: two or three sentences describing the writer as a stranger would see
   them, written so I can agree or disagree with it.
5. The single most revealing line from any sample, quoted.
6. One or two sentences on what the two verdicts mean together.

Write in plain, direct, warm American English. Contractions are fine. Never use an em dash.
Never use the construction "it's not X, it's Y". Address me as you. Be specific and
unsparing, but never sneering.