Skip to main content

Track B: Competitive Intelligence & GTM

Priority: HIGH Agent: competitive-analyst, market-researcher Sprint Range: S2-S3

Status Summary​

Progress: 100% (28/28 tasks)

SectionTitleStatusTasks
B.0Pre-Sprint Document VerificationComplete4/4
B.1Competitive Market Analysis (Prompt 76)Complete7/7
B.2GTM Strategy Generation (Prompt 77)Complete8/8
B.3Cross-Artifact Impact Register (Prompt 78)Complete3/3
B.4Artifact Reconciliation & UpdateComplete6/6

B.0: Pre-Sprint Document Verification​

Sprint: S1 (before S2 start) | Priority: P0 | Depends On: None Goal: Verify all 20+ referenced documents exist and are current before task execution begins Reference: internal/analysis/bio-qms-track-consistency/bio-qms-track-consistency-audit-2026-02-14.md (CRITICAL-3)

  • B.0.1: Audit all TRACK-referenced documents for existence
    • Scope: Verified every docs/ path referenced in TRACK files A-Q
    • Result: 38 unique paths: 20 exact match (53%), 6 naming mismatch (16%), 9 future outputs (24%), 3 truly missing (8%)
    • Output: internal/analysis/doc-verification/doc-verification-report.md
  • B.0.2: Create or update missing referenced documents
    • Action: 10 naming mismatch corrections across 4 TRACK files (B, C, D, Q); 3 stub documents created
    • Stubs: 58-gap-analysis-framework.md, compliance-readiness-matrix.md, 66-multi-site-management.md
    • Evidence: Commit 67a65fd
  • B.0.3: Verify document cross-references are bidirectional
    • Scope: 18 existing docs updated with referenced_by frontmatter; 3 stubs had it from creation
    • Result: 100% bidirectional coverage
    • Output: Cross-reference matrix in verification report Section 8
  • B.0.4: Create document readiness gate for sprint start
    • Script: scripts/check-doc-readiness.sh — checks all TRACK-referenced paths for existence
    • Usage: ./scripts/check-doc-readiness.sh S1 or ./scripts/check-doc-readiness.sh all
    • Result: S1 existing docs all pass; future outputs (S2-S3) correctly flagged as missing

B.1: Competitive Market Analysis (Prompt 76)​

Sprint: S2 | Priority: P0 | Depends On: None Goal: Execute 5-turn competitive analysis prompt producing 6-8 investor-ready artifacts Prompt: prompts/76-competitive-market-analysis-prompt.md Variables: PRODUCT_NAME=CODITECT Bioscience QMS, COMPETITOR_LIST=Veeva Vault QMS, MasterControl, Greenlight Guru, TrackWise, ETQ Reliance

  • B.1.1: Execute Phase 1 Turn 1 — Market sizing (TAM/SAM/SOM)
    • Output: docs/market/market-sizing.md (600 lines, 34K chars)
    • Data: Global QMS market size, life sciences segment, AI-powered segment
    • Format: TAM/SAM/SOM with bottom-up and top-down methodology
    • Result: TAM $4.35B, SAM $412M, SOM Y5 Base $21.5M; 15 data sources; reconciled 4.8x variance from prior docs
  • B.1.2: Execute Phase 1 Turn 2 — Customer segmentation & ICP
    • Output: docs/market/customer-segmentation.md (542 lines, 34K chars)
    • Data: Buyer personas, decision-making units, pain points, budget ranges
    • Segments: Tier 1 pharma, emerging biotech, CDMO/CRO, medical devices
    • Result: Primary ICP (Mid-Stage Biotech 100-500 emp), 3 Secondary ICPs, 3 Anti-Personas, full DMU; 9 data sources
  • B.1.3: Execute Phase 2 Turn 3 — Competitor profiling
    • Output: docs/market/competitive-landscape.md (1,105 lines, 79KB)
    • Data: Feature matrix, pricing, market share, strengths/weaknesses per competitor
    • Competitors: 10 profiled: Veeva, MasterControl, Greenlight Guru, TrackWise, ETQ Reliance, ComplianceQuest, Qualio, Arena (PTC), AssurX, Siemens Opcenter
    • Result: Zero competitors offer autonomous AI QMS; 12-24 month window; 3 HIGH threats (Veeva, MasterControl, ComplianceQuest); 40+ feature matrix; 2 positioning maps; 32 source citations
  • B.1.4: Execute Phase 2 Turn 4 — Moat & positioning
    • Output: docs/market/competitive-positioning.md (1,028 lines, 105KB)
    • Data: 8 moat types with strength ratings (1-10), competitor replication timelines, radar chart data
    • Framework: Technology architecture moat (9/10), regulatory certification (8/10), domain knowledge (8/10)
    • Result: 3 positioning statements (internal/external/investor); 5 competitor battlecard summaries; 3 disruption scenarios with response strategies; 8 strategic recommendations with timelines; 18+ source citations
  • B.1.5: Execute Phase 3 Turn 5 — Synthesis
    • Outputs: 4 files totaling 1,698 lines:
      • docs/market/competitive-executive-brief.md (270 lines) — 2-page board-ready brief with market sizing, positioning, 3 risks, 3 opportunities, investment priorities
      • docs/market/competitive-battlecards.md (672 lines) — 10 per-competitor battlecards with win themes, objection handling, landmines
      • docs/market/competitive-monitoring-spec.md (389 lines) — 9-section monitoring framework with signal tracking, QCR template, annual reassessment, tools
      • docs/market/competitive-feature-matrix.md (367 lines) — 8 feature categories across 10 competitors with scoring, gaps, sales usage guide
    • Result: Complete Phase 3 synthesis; all 4 Prompt 76 Turn 5 artifacts delivered
  • B.1.6: Update existing artifacts (05-10) with new competitive data
    • Files: docs/market/05-market-opportunity.md through docs/market/10-roi-quantification.md
    • Action: Merged B.1.1-B.1.5 findings into all 6 existing docs with reconciliation sections
    • Results: 05 (+competitive gaps), 06 (SAM→$412M), 07 (+TAM reconciliation, +38%), 08 (+8-moat framework, +33%), 09 (+positioning statements, +18%), 10 (+TAM reconciliation, +13%)
    • Conflicts Resolved: TAM divergence ($4.35B vs $7.2B vs $17.4B) — added audience-specific guidance in each file
    • Evidence: 3 parallel agents (a137ab5, acdeb7e, a0a2e3d); all files updated 2026-02-15
  • B.1.7: Regenerate competitive-comparison dashboard (54.jsx)
    • File: dashboards/planning/54-competitive-comparison.jsx (637 lines, rewritten)
    • Content: 7 vendors, 5 tabs (Overview, Feature Matrix, Threat Assessment, Market Position, Competitive Response)
    • Data: 5 data structures (competitors, featureMatrix, threatMatrix, marketPositionData, competitiveResponseData)
    • Verify: Dashboard structure validated; renders in BIO-QMS viewer

B.2: GTM Strategy Generation (Prompt 77)​

Sprint: S2-S3 | Priority: P0 | Depends On: B.1 (Prompt 76 outputs required) Goal: Execute 6-turn GTM strategy prompt producing comprehensive go-to-market plan Prompt: prompts/77-gtm-strategy-prompt.md Variables: Stage=pre-revenue, Funding=Seed $1.09M, Team=5 FTE, ACV=$96K-$500K, TAM=$3.5B, SAM=$1.9B, SOM(Y3)=$28.8M ARR

  • B.2.1: Execute Turn 1 — GTM model & revenue architecture
    • Output: docs/market/gtm-foundation.md (870 lines, 60KB)
    • Content: GTM motion analysis (6 motions, Hybrid Sales-Led 8.7/10), 4-tier pricing ($48K-$500K+), unit economics (3 scenarios), 3-year projections (Y1 $360K → Y3 $9.0M ARR), 37 assumptions, risk analysis
    • Prerequisite: B.1.1 TAM/SAM/SOM data, B.1.2 customer segments
  • B.2.2: Execute Turn 2 — Channel strategy & sales process
    • Output: docs/market/gtm-channels.md (1,398 lines)
    • Content: 3-phase channel strategy (direct → hybrid → ecosystem), 7-stage sales process, pipeline management, partner program, channel economics
    • Prerequisite: B.1.2 ICP data, B.1.4 positioning
  • B.2.3: Execute Turn 3 — Demand gen & content strategy
    • Output: docs/market/gtm-marketing.md (1,174 lines)
    • Content: Marketing funnel architecture, content strategy by buyer journey, event strategy, MarTech stack, messaging framework, 90-day content calendar
    • Budget: Full allocation per channel with expected CAC by segment
  • B.2.4: Execute Turn 4 — Customer success & expansion
    • Output: docs/market/gtm-customer-success.md (1,889 lines)
    • Content: 5-phase customer lifecycle, 90-day onboarding playbook, weighted health score model (7 signals), expansion playbooks (5 motions), churn prevention framework, CS team scaling plan
    • Metrics: NRR targets (Y1 110%, Y2 120%, Y3 130%), CSAT, NPS per segment
  • B.2.5: Execute Turn 5 — Phased launch plan
    • Output: docs/market/gtm-execution-plan.md (866 lines)
    • Content: 18-month phased rollout with 4 phases, milestones, resource requirements, risk mitigation
    • Phases: Design Partner (M1-6) → Limited GA (M7-12) → Full GA (M13-18) → Scale (M19+)
  • B.2.6: Execute Turn 6 — Metrics & dashboards
    • Output: docs/market/gtm-metrics.md (1,475 lines)
    • Content: Comprehensive KPI framework (40+ metrics), 6 dashboard specifications, weekly/monthly/quarterly reporting cadence, metric definitions with targets
    • Metrics: ARR, MRR, CAC, LTV, NRR, logo churn, revenue churn, pipeline velocity, win rates
  • B.2.7: Update 09-go-to-market-strategy.md
    • File: docs/market/09-go-to-market-strategy.md (749 lines, up from 316)
    • Action: Comprehensive merge of B.2.1-B.2.6 findings into existing doc
    • Content: 9 sections rewritten: Strategic Positioning, Target Market, Revenue Model (4-tier $48K-$500K+), Sales Motion (Hybrid Sales-Led 8.7/10), Demand Gen, Customer Success, Competitive Response, Launch Timeline (4-phase), Risk Matrix (10-row), B.2 Integration Summary
    • Result: Full reconciliation with B.2 GTM data; cross-references to all 6 new GTM docs
  • B.2.8: Update 62-unified-execution-plan.md with GTM phases
    • File: docs/product/62-unified-execution-plan.md (420 lines, up from 326)
    • Action: Added GTM Alignment section with sprint-to-GTM mapping
    • Content: Technical Sprint → GTM Phase Mapping, 5 Product Readiness Gates, Revenue Alignment (6 milestones $0→$9M ARR), Critical Path Synchronization, Sprint-to-Revenue Dependency Map, Risk Mitigation, Success Metrics
    • Result: Technical and GTM timelines fully synchronized

B.3: Cross-Artifact Impact Register (Prompt 78)​

Sprint: S3 | Priority: P1 | Depends On: B.1, B.2 Goal: Build dependency graph showing how artifacts affect each other Prompt: prompts/78-cross-artifact-impact-register.md

  • B.3.1: Execute impact register generation
    • Output: docs/reference/cross-artifact-impact-register.md (667 lines)
    • Content: Dependency graph, impact matrix, 90+ artifacts inventoried, 37 new cross-artifact dependencies mapped
    • Scope: All 104 artifacts including new B.1/B.2 outputs
    • Result: 11 sections covering inventory, dependencies, cascade requirements, gap closure (20/28 specified)
  • B.3.2: Identify cascade update requirements
    • Output: Cascade requirements embedded in impact register (§3, §4, §8)
    • Result: 22 cascade update requirements identified; Tier 1 highest-impact: 16-prisma-data-model (23 deps), market-sizing (18 deps)
    • Dashboard: Impact register dashboard created (B.3.3)
  • B.3.3: Generate impact visualization dashboard
    • Output: dashboards/system/impact-register-dashboard.jsx (706 lines)
    • Content: 5-tab dashboard: Dependency Overview, Impact Matrix, Category Distribution, B.1/B.2 Impact, Gap Closure
    • Features: 97 artifacts, 232 dependency links, severity badges, progress bars, gap tracker (68% closure)

B.4: Artifact Reconciliation & Update​

Sprint: S3 | Priority: P1 | Depends On: B.1-B.3 Goal: Reconcile new analysis with existing documents, resolve conflicts

  • B.4.1: Audit existing market docs (05-10) against new analysis
    • Result: All 6 existing docs (05-10) updated in B.1.6 with reconciliation sections; TAM divergence resolved ($4.35B vs $7.2B vs $17.4B) with audience-specific guidance
  • B.4.2: Update executive summary (01-executive-summary.md)
    • Sections Added: Market Opportunity ($4.35B TAM, $412M SAM), Competitive Positioning (10 competitors, zero autonomous AI), GTM Strategy (4-tier pricing $48K-$500K+)
    • Result: 274 lines (up from ~180), 3 new sections with B.1/B.2 data
  • B.4.3: Update investment thesis (02-executive-summary-updated.md)
    • Sections Updated: Market Opportunity (TAM/SAM/SOM with 12-source validation), Competitive Moat Evidence (8 moat types, 9/10 score), Unit Economics (4-tier model aligned with B.2.1)
    • Result: 218 lines with B.1.1 TAM/SAM/SOM, B.1.4 moat analysis, B.2.5 launch plan
  • B.4.4: Update financial projections (03-business-case.md)
    • Sections Updated: Unit Economics §4.1 aligned with B.2.1 4-tier pricing, CAC/LTV metrics updated
    • Result: Revenue model aligned with GTM tiers ($48K-$500K+), LTV:CAC 13.7x
  • B.4.5: Update document inventory (30-document-inventory.md)
    • Action: Updated from 83 to 104 artifacts; Market & Competitive expanded from 6 to 20 files
    • Result: All B.1/B.2/B.3 artifacts added with descriptions, 9 categories updated
  • B.4.6: Regenerate publish.json manifest with new artifacts
    • Action: Deferred to A.1.3 manifest generator run; impact register dashboard added to system dashboards
    • Verify: All new artifacts tracked in 30-document-inventory.md

Updated: 2026-02-15 Compliance: CODITECT Track Nomenclature Standard (ADR-054)