Case: the situation row

Before rewriting a draft, list its faults against the evidence. A situation row usually fails in four ways:

1. Wrong benchmark: it builds on the rival the team watches, not the alternatives customers name.
2. Missing alternatives: the options most customers weigh (free, waiting, informal) aren't there.
3. Unsourced beliefs stated as facts: "customers trust their brand" with no survey, review count or date.
4. Tactics instead of situation: it jumps to spend or discounts that copy the rival.

Uliana's draft has all four. It calls the large online school the main competitor, though 15 of 160 families named it while 97 named free videos with a chatbot, waiting or a school teacher. "Parents trust their brand" has no source. And "match their spring ad spend and offer a bigger discount" is a tactic, and a copy at that.

What isn't a fault: mentioning a rival at all, or being short. A row should be short.

Before a number goes into the plan, compute it exactly; "almost half" is a feeling, 44.38% is a fact anyone can check.

From Klasna's 160 sign-up answers, the free alternatives are free videos with an AI chatbot (43) and waiting or doing nothing (28): 43 + 28 = 71, and 71 ÷ 160 = 0.44375 = 44.38%. Uliana's "almost half" holds.

The number matters because of what it rules out. Matching a rival's spring ad spend competes for attention against another school. It does nothing against an alternative that costs nothing and doesn't advertise: a family weighing Klasna against free videos isn't swayed by Klasna being louder, only by Klasna doing a job the free option doesn't do.

So the share of free alternatives belongs in the situation row: it tells Leo that the plan's main fight is about value, not about outspending a rival.

The first row of the one-page plan, the situation, answers one question: whom do we really compete with? A good row has four parts, in this order:

1. The market as customers see it: the customer and what they'd do instead, in one sentence.
2. The main alternatives, with numbers: from what customers told you, e.g. Klasna's sign-up answers (free videos with a chatbot 43 of 160, waiting 28, a school teacher 26, the large online school 15).
3. What each does well and where it falls short: written as hypotheses to check in interviews, e.g. a school teacher is trusted and nearby but works at a group pace.
4. What we don't know yet: each unknown with an honest way to find out, e.g. why 15 families named nothing.

The order matters: the market sentence frames everything; the numbers keep it honest; the gaps show where Klasna might win; the unknowns stop guesses from becoming facts on their way to Leo.

In the situation row, a rival is described only by what you can source and date. Three kinds of content qualify:

• What they promise, in their own words, from a public page, with the day you checked: "experienced tutors, any schedule" (homepage, 1 Oct 2026).
• A counted clue from public material: "12 of 40 public reviews mention tutor changes".
• What to watch: a new offer, a price change, a new audience.

Three kinds don't qualify. Guesses about what they spend or earn ("about two million on spring ads"): you can't see their books. Beliefs about how customers feel ("parents trust their brand") without a survey or count. And anything gained by deception, such as a sales script heard on a call booked under a false pretext: it stays out of the plan, however tempting.

The test for each sentence: could Leo click a link, or count something, and get the same answer?

The first line of the situation row defines the market by the customers' own answers, with numbers anyone can check, and keeps any named rival in proportion.

A strong version for Klasna: "Families who come to Klasna mostly weigh it against free videos with an AI chatbot (43 of 160), waiting (28) and a school teacher's lessons (26); the large online school was named by 15."

Why the others fail:

• "Klasna competes with the large online school, which leads the market" makes one rival the market, and "leads" has no source.
• "Klasna has no real competitors because its tutors are better" denies competition and claims an unprovable superiority.
• "The tutoring market is huge and growing fast" is a claim with no source, and it says nothing about what Klasna's families do instead.

A first line that a reader can check against the sign-up table is a line that survives Leo's questions.

The situation row describes; it doesn't prescribe. Recall the order of the one-page plan: situation, segments, first target, position, then channels, messages and budget, offer and growth. Ad spend and discounts belong several rows down, after the plan knows whom it serves and why they'd choose Klasna.

Uliana's draft ends with "match their spring ad spend and offer a bigger discount". Both are tactics, and both copy one rival. A discount answers a price question; but most of Klasna's families compare it with free videos with a chatbot or with waiting, and they aren't asking about price first. No discount beats free.

The idea isn't thrown away: it's parked for the later rows, where it can be judged against the first target and the position. If a price move is ever right, it's decided there, with the help of the Pricing course, not slipped into the description of the market.

Putting a rival in proportion doesn't mean deleting it. A competitor that a real share of customers name keeps one line in the situation row: what it promises, as published, and what to watch.

The large online school was named by 15 of 160 families, 9.38%: a real share. Its line might read: "Large online school: promises 'experienced tutors, any schedule' (homepage, 1 Oct 2026); 12 of 40 public reviews mention tutor changes; watch for a new exam offer or price change." That line informs the plan without setting it.

Leaving it out would make the row less true, and Leo, who sees the school on every search page, would rightly ask where it went.

How it fits together: the situation row starts from the alternatives customers name, with exact numbers; rival facts are public and dated; each alternative's gap is a hypothesis; unknowns are written down; tactics wait for later rows. Next module: who Klasna's customers really are, and why the average family doesn't exist.