Enter the passphrase Ryan shared with you.
The public teaser earns the click; the report earns the belief. It is the artifact that makes The HQ Index feel like a category-defining study — the shelf presence of a BrandZ or an Edelman Trust Barometer — and the thing a CMO forwards to a CFO. Three jobs: prove the method is rigorous, make humanity feel commercially serious, and leave one clear next step (score my brand / talk to Together With).
Chief Customer / Marketing Officer and their exec peers. Skimmable in 5 minutes, defensible in 50.
Show the shape of the truth; gate the depth. The public sees enough to trust and be intrigued; the math and the full ranking live inside, with the heavy method in the appendix.
The report is a story, not a data dump. It opens on the cultural shift, resolves into a number, proves the number with exemplars, and only then shows its work. Drip, don't dump.
| Section | Job | Reveals | Spreads |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 · Brand 4.0 the provocation | Name the shift: AI made capability free; humanity is the scarce edge. | Public | 2–3 |
| 2 · The one KPI | Introduce HQ — the one score. Capability → humanity → value; AI is a separate amplifier. | Public | 2 |
| 3 · What we measure | The eight human factors — Human Performance, the 60% core of the score. | Public | 2 |
| 4 · The 2026 ranking | The headline league table + category leaders. The moment people share. | Gated | 3–4 |
| 5 · Exemplars | How humanity creates value — Patagonia, LEGO, Edward Jones, Delta… | Gated | 6–8 |
| 6 · The strategic reality | The AI × customer-value quadrant; automate / augment / protect / rebuild. | Gated | 2 |
| 7 · What to do Monday | From score to action; the HQ Foundations workshop offer. | Gated | 2 |
| 8 · Method & governance appendix | The 1/3/5 rubric, weights, formula, evidence ledger, honest limits. | Appendix | 4–6 |
The full math (the 60/25/15 composite, the 0–5 per-factor rubric and normalization) lives in §8 — present, traceable, but never the opening act. Honest, inaugural framing; measurement kept separate from recommendation.
One system across the teaser, the report and every promo asset — Together With's brand, tuned for institutional depth. Poppy where it invites; restrained where it must be believed.
JetBrains / tabular figuresChart rules: factor color follows the entity and is always paired with a label; one axis per chart; thin marks, recessive gridlines; a dark-mode variant stepped from the same ramps. (Validated colorblind-safe.)
The team already builds with Claude and AI tools. So the deliverable isn't just the report — it's the kit that lets them produce and re-skin it themselves: the inputs to feed, the prompts to run, the components to assemble, and the rails to stay inside.
You are writing The 2026 HQ Index™ for Together With.
Voice: confident, humane, plainspoken; sentence-case headlines; no hype, no jargon.
Rules: humanity → customer value is the through-line. Never claim causation to
revenue — advocacy/CSAT is the proven signal; CSAT validation is "the next chapter."
Every score traces to evidence. Keep the eight human factors memorable; keep the math
in the appendix. One idea per spread.
Using the scorecard component and this company's record
{name, category, score, dimension 1/3/5 ratings, "how humanity creates value",
AI principle}, draft a one-spread exemplar: a 12-word thesis line, 3 value
mechanisms, and the "what AI should / shouldn't touch" note. Match the design
system. Flag any claim not supported by the evidence field.
Swap the peer set and category leader; the system, type and components stay fixed.
Same shell, add the internal diagnostic view (CSAT/NPS, journey data) that never touches the public score.
The kit moves fast, so the rails matter. These keep the report credible and the IP protected.
Approve the reveal sequence & gate line.
Components + prompts + references handed to design.
Design team generates spreads with Claude; Spinoza edits for voice.
Evidence & guardrail check; exec read.
Gated PDF + web excerpt wired to the teaser.
MVP scope for launch: the public sections + the ranking + 6–8 exemplars + a tight method appendix. Full 204 scorecards and the per-client Snapshot come as the study matures.
Confirm exactly what's free (the eight factors + teased ranking) vs. paid (full ranking, per-factor scorecards, method). My default is drawn above.
Gated PDF is the MVP. Do we also want an interactive web report (same system) as a fast-follow?
Design lead on Together With's side + the kit, with Spinoza owning voice and the evidence check. Confirm the split.