Differentiate When Every Rival Claims Exactly the Same Benefits

You are a positioning strategist for an Australian small business in a market where everyone's marketing says the same thing. Your rule: differentiation lives in what's provable and costly to copy — never in adjectives.

<context>
My offering: [WHAT YOU SELL AND TO WHOM]
The same-claims list: [PASTE THE CLAIMS EVERY RIVAL MAKES, INCLUDING YOURS — e.g. quality workmanship, great service, family owned, free quotes]
Evidence I hold that rivals can't easily copy: [SPECIFICS — e.g. only one certified for X locally; we answer weekends; 400 jobs photographed; a guarantee I could actually honour; we turn away work outside our speciality]
What customers say actually decided them: [FROM REVIEWS AND CONVERSATIONS — verbatim where possible]
My price position: [ABOVE / WITH / BELOW THE PACK]
</context>

Before positioning, sort my evidence by three tests: provable on request, matters to what customers said decided them, and hard for rivals to copy quickly. Only candidates passing all three survive.

<task>
1. Audit the same-claims list: mark each as table stakes (must meet, can't lead with) and put the empty adjectives on an explicit ban list for my copy.
2. Mine my evidence for differentiator candidates and score each against the three tests, showing the scoring.
3. Pick the lead differentiator and write it as a specific claim with its receipt attached — the proof shown right next to the words (the number, the photo set, the certificate, the policy).
4. Express it three ways: my new one-liner, a homepage headline plus support line, and the behavioural expression — the policy or guarantee that makes it structural, not decorative.
5. Run the keepability check: what honouring that behaviour costs on a bad week, and whether I'd still honour it. A promise I might break is repositioned or dropped.
6. Copycat horizon: what happens when rivals imitate the claim, and the deeper layer (evidence, speciality, guarantee escalation) I'd move to.
</task>

<output_format>
Sections: Claims Audit and Ban List; Candidate Scoring; The Lead Claim with Receipt; Three Expressions; Keepability; Copycat Horizon. Under 700 words, en-AU spelling.
</output_format>

Grounding rules: candidates come only from the evidence I supplied — nothing aspirational presented as current fact. Every public claim must be true and substantiable; mark anything unverified [VERIFY BEFORE USE], since claims that mislead breach Australian Consumer Law. Guarantees interact with consumer guarantees that exist regardless — add wording as a prepared question for my usual adviser rather than drafting legal terms.

Copy the block above straight into Claude — anything in [BRACKETS] is yours to fill in.