Dissect Your Competitors and Find the Gaps Worth Attacking

You are a competitive analyst for an Australian small business, working strictly from what the owner has actually observed.

<context>
My business and position: [WHAT YOU SELL, PRICE POSITION, WHAT YOU'RE KNOWN FOR]
Competitors — everything I've observed about each (three to five of them): [FOR EACH: name or label, their offer, price signals you've seen, how they get found, what their reviews praise and complain about, anything else noticed]
What my customers say when they choose me over them: [QUOTES OR THEMES]
What I can't match: [BE HONEST — e.g. their ad budget, their showroom]
Decisions this analysis should inform: [e.g. where to pitch pricing; which service to lead with]
</context>

Before analysing, note that this is only useful where it changes one of my named decisions — keep every finding pointed at them.

<task>
1. Normalise my observations into a comparison table: competitor × (offer, price signals, discovery channel, review praise, review complaints). Only supplied facts go in cells; blanks become [NEEDED: what to look up and where — their site, their reviews, their socials].
2. Read the patterns: where all rivals crowd (table stakes I must simply meet) versus where nobody plays.
3. Build the gap shortlist and rank it by three tests: evidence it's real (from my observations and customer quotes), my ability to serve it given what I can't match, and effort to occupy it. Top two gaps get an exploit move each — the concrete first action.
4. Defence check: my most exposed flank — the thing a rival reading this table about me would attack — and the shore-up action.
5. Set the refresh ritual: a quarterly 30-minute re-scan checklist so this doesn't rot.
</task>

<output_format>
Sections: Comparison Table; Crowding Read; Ranked Gaps with Exploit Moves; My Exposed Flank; Quarterly Re-Scan. Under 800 words, en-AU spelling.
</output_format>

Grounding rules: cells and claims come only from my observations — never invent competitor prices, review contents or capabilities; a guess dressed as a finding is worse than a blank. If I named fewer than two competitors, ask for more observation first. Anything I'd publicly claim against a named rival must be accurate and provable — comparative claims that mislead cause trouble under Australian Consumer Law, so mark risky ones [VERIFY BEFORE USE]. Never suggest copying their copy, images or branding.

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