Marketing Plan Refresh — Post-Pelican Pivot

Source of ask: Docs accuracy audit (E11) — flagged the drift; Josh directed “queue the dedicated Marketing Plan” refresh in the 2026-04-23 follow-up chat.

Context

The 2026-04-23 Pelican 1170 pivot (commit 2dfea2e, “docs(hardware): swap custom clamshell case for Pelican 1170 + 3D-printed insets”) changed the KN-86’s canonical form factor from a bespoke 3D-printed clamshell (220 × 155 × 32 mm, GBA SP hinges, Rust-Oleum topcoat) to an off-the-shelf Pelican 1170 Protector Case with 3D-printed inset panels. CLAUDE.md’s Canonical Hardware Specification and the hardware-spec docs (Pi Zero Build Spec, Sourcing Guide, Prototype Architecture, Product Evaluation, ICE-BREAKER Operator Manual, writing/CLAUDE.md duplicate table) were all updated in the same commit.

docs/marketing/KN-86-Marketing-Plan.md was not touched by the pivot commit. The audit’s §4a canonical-value sweep confirmed the plan carries no restated hardware values that drift (correct amber display, 80×25, YM2149, Pi Zero 2 W, etc.), but the build-in-public content calendar and narrative arc still presume the custom 3D-printed clamshell. Per playbook §6.2, reframing the content calendar is a design-commitment change, not a value fix — an audit-class edit would exceed §5.2 and trip §6.2. Hence this queued task.

Scope — what needs to change

Text-level drift is limited but narrative drift is systemic. Suspected hit list (from the audit’s §4a sweep and line-numbered grep of KN-86-Marketing-Plan.md):

Week 11 “Enclosure Design & 3D Printing” (lines ~1149–1166) — entire week’s content calendar presumes a custom-clamshell design arc: “CAD renderings of enclosure design,” “Time-lapse of 3D printing. Multiple iterations. The moment the first successful print emerges,” “Thoughts on Our Enclosure Design? Help Us Refine,” “enclosure design is not aesthetic—it’s functional and philosophical.” Under the Pelican pivot, the arc becomes “foam-cut + inset-panel design” — a materially different and shorter story. Week 11 likely needs a structural rewrite or reallocation.
Week 15 “First Working Prototype” (lines ~1278–1285) — language like “The enclosure may still be 3D-printed, the switch layout may still be a rev.” is now wrong by default; the enclosure is a Pelican 1170 from day one, not a 3D-printed clamshell. Rephrase to reflect foam-cut + inset-panel prototype status.
Week N Prototype Reveal (lines ~1318) — “Walkthrough of the form factor, the interface, the sound design, the cartridge slot” still works, but the aesthetic language around the form factor needs to be re-grounded in the ruggedized field-instrument / Pelican hardcase framing that KN-86-Product-Evaluation.md already uses (per the 2dfea2e rewrite).
Runway Phase 1 — “Prototype Hardening” (line ~1353) — “enclosure iterations” beat needs rephrasing; there are no enclosure iterations on a Pelican shell, only inset-panel and foam iterations.
Positioning / narrative — the Marketing Plan’s “3D-printed, bespoke, hand-crafted” language (where present) should be re-aligned with KN-86-Product-Evaluation.md’s “ruggedized field instrument, Pelican hardcase, drop it in a pack” framing. The 2dfea2e Product-Evaluation rewrite is the closest existing reference voice to mirror.
Competitor analysis (lines 320, 341) — no change required. Line 320 (r/cyberdeck DIY Pelican builds) and line 341 (Penkesu Computer 3D-printed clamshell) describe competitors, not the KN-86. The clamshell hits there are contextually correct.

Out of scope for this refresh

Hardware-spec values (screen res, grid, processor, audio, battery, etc.) — all correct, no value-level edits needed.
Competitor descriptions (r/cyberdeck, Penkesu, etc.) — leave as-is.
Pricing / SKU / launch date details — the PR-FAQ (now at docs/business/KN-86-PR-FAQ.md as of 2026-04-23) is the authoritative source for $499 / $39 / $599 / 2,500-unit first run / Nov 11, 2027 launch date. Marketing Plan should cross-reference the PR-FAQ rather than restating.
The existing “Product, Market, Positioning” framework — that structure holds; the refresh is tonal and calendar-structural, not a strategic rewrite.

Suggested approach

Read docs/business/KN-86-Product-Evaluation.md §1 (the “ruggedized field instrument” paragraph post-Pelican rewrite) and docs/business/KN-86-PR-FAQ.md press release body for the canonical post-pivot positioning voice.
Diff-edit pass on docs/marketing/KN-86-Marketing-Plan.md: a. Rephrase enclosure-arc content (Weeks 11, 15, Runway Phase 1) around the Pelican + inset-panel reality. b. Swap “3D-printed enclosure” → “3D-printed inset panels” or “Pelican hardcase” where referring to the KN-86 itself. c. Rework any positioning prose that leans on “hand-crafted bespoke clamshell” aesthetic to the ruggedized field-instrument frame.
Add a short ## PR-FAQ or ## Launch Materials cross-reference pointing at docs/business/KN-86-PR-FAQ.md so the two artifacts are linked rather than redundant.
Verify with Josh before shipping — the voice shift is editorial, not mechanical.

Target diff size: probably ~80–150 lines of edits across ~10 sections. Exceeds playbook §5.2 (30-line cap for a single DEFINITIVE doc in an audit run), hence this dedicated task.

Acceptance criteria

Marketing Plan’s content calendar (Weeks 11, 15, Runway phases) reflects the Pelican + inset-panel build arc, not a custom clamshell.
All “3D-printed enclosure” / “3D-printed case” references to the KN-86 itself rephrased. (Competitor product descriptions unchanged.)
Positioning language aligned with KN-86-Product-Evaluation.md and KN-86-PR-FAQ.md post-pivot voice.
PR-FAQ cross-reference added.
Next audit’s §4a sweep runs clean against the refreshed plan.

Non-goals

Not a rewrite of the strategy, target personas, GTM channels, or timeline.
Not updating pricing / launch details in the plan itself — link to PR-FAQ.

Phrase ban list (added 2026-04-30, GWP-379)

The 2026-04-30 fiction-first → device-first positioning pivot (GWP-379) added a banned-phrasings rule to docs/marketing/marketing-plan.md §“Language Matters.” Restated here as the canonical reference for any future copy work that draws from this plan:

Banned in product-marketing surfaces — marketing plan, executive summary, pitch decks, press kit, website copy, packaging copy, social, paid copy:

“thought in lists” / “thinks in lists”
“shouldn’t have existed”
“never real — until now”
“never manufactured — until now”
“artifact we are resurrecting” / “reviving”
“blueprints left behind”
close paraphrases of any of the above (e.g. “list-shaped runtime,” “reconstructed from blueprints,” “reviving lost technology”)

Not banned: the KEC / Edgeware fiction itself. The Edgeware setting remains the aesthetic and lore around the device; the rule is that it lands as the closing beat of any positioning surface, not the opener. Lead with what the device is and what it runs; close with the world.

Out of scope of the ban: the in-universe fiction subtree at docs/marketing/narrative/ — operator dispatches, stories, changelogs, and the worldbook continue to use whatever in-universe voice fits. The ban governs product marketing only.

Refresh status (this plan doc): the GWP-379 PR landed the §Executive Summary, §What the KN-86 Is, §What It Is NOT, and §Language Matters edits in marketing-plan.md. The Pelican-pivot scope above (Weeks 11, 15, Runway) is still open and is the next work item under this refresh.

Note: This is a WORKING-folder queue item per playbook §3 (dated YYYY-MM-DD-*.md in docs/plans/). It graduates to closed when the Marketing Plan refresh ships and the next audit’s §4a sweep runs clean.