Category news cannot justify publishing without a positioning decision.

Public category events give everyone the same headline. The signal I inspect is whether the draft names a changed marketing choice, rather than merely explaining the event.

The substitution check exposes the defect: replace the brand with another plausible brand and reread the argument. If the reasoning still fits, the reaction has no distinct angle, however polished the copy.

My operating rule: compare the verified public change with the positioning decision it affects before approving publication. If that connection stays vague, I stop the draft and rebuild around the choice, noting what would weaken the interpretation.

Suppose a premium snack brand is reacting to public category news about simpler ingredients. The draft says the brand welcomes the shift; swap in another snack brand and nothing changes. I would hold it, then rebuild only if the event changes a real positioning choice, such as moving from indulgence-led messaging to ingredient-led messaging, with a clear condition that would weaken that reading.

A repeatable system can preserve the public input and source trail. Judgement still sits in the causal step from event to decision, where a shared headline becomes a usable angle.

#BrandPositioning

#MarketingStrategy

What substitution check helps your team separate a usable angle from a polished category reaction?