Authored example · 8.4s Meta cut

One example, with the reasoning visible.

An authored walkthrough using a Coca-Cola creative. It illustrates the five diagnostic KPIs, evidence review and edit planning. Scores, quotes and timings are example content, not a live study or measured campaign outcomes.

Ad Coca-Cola, Holidays are coming · 8.4s Meta cut Surface Meta Reels Region US Evidence Authored example

Book a demo → Review the evidence

// 02, the ad

The opening, on the record.

Eight-second Meta-Feed cut. Holiday sentiment narrative, brand cue late. The diagnostic moment is the gap between the emotional payoff and the pack arriving on screen.

Coca-Cola · Meta Reels · US

Holidays are coming.

Creative frames illustrate the walkthrough. No verified benchmark cohort or current campaign outcome is attached to this example.

8.4s 1080×1920 Brand in first 3s · NO

Your next-test plan · authored example

Make the brand cue easier to identify.

Keep

The holiday atmosphere and opening visual hook.

Change

Test an earlier, readable Coca-Cola pack cue in this short cut.

Test

Compare that edit with the original 8.4-second cut, with the same audience, platform and brief. Assess outcomes in market before increasing spend.

Authored illustration · no human review of a client report is recorded here. This short cut is a different creative from the 60-second workspace example.

// 01, the verdict

Composite 62 / 100, SHARPEN.

The composite is a weighted sum of the five frozen KPIs. 62 lands in the 55–69 Sharpen band. No KPI drops below 45, so the Rebuild double-rule doesn't trip. Treat the proposed edit as a hypothesis to test.

// Verdict SHARPEN Composite 55–69 AND no KPI below 45. Action: fix the bottleneck KPI, re-score, re-decide. Single weak signal, not a structural problem.

// 03, five KPIs, frozen weights

The breakdown, per KPI.

The names are frozen. The weights are frozen. Strong ≥ 70, Moderate 45–69, Weak below 45. The Brand Impact row is the bottleneck, the authored evidence illustrates a 6.8s logo entry on an 8-second cut.

Beat the Skip

25%

Strong

Get Noticed

20%

Moderate

Brand Impact

20%

Moderate

Sell Proposition

20%

Moderate

Build Brand

15%

Moderate

Composite math. (70 × 0.25) + (65 × 0.20) + (45 × 0.20) + (68 × 0.20) + (60 × 0.15) = 17.5 + 13.0 + 9.0 + 13.6 + 9.0 = 62.1 → rounds to 62. Brand Impact contributes 9 points out of a possible 20. A better score is not guaranteed; inspect the evidence before deciding which edit to test.

// 04, evidence

An example evidence trail.

Example frame notes show how to trace a diagnostic back to the creative. Live reports link to the evidence recorded for their own analysis.

0.4s · Beat the Skip Strong opening attention signal, hand-over-glass.

2.1s · Get Noticed Composition holds. No brand signal yet.

6.8s · Brand Impact First distinctive pack appearance, late.

8.4s · Build Brand Flat end card. Memorable pattern incomplete.

// 05, recommended edits

What an editor can fix this week.

Choose one edit, preserve the strongest cues, and compare the revision. A score increase is not guaranteed.

Move the first distinctive pack into 0, 1.5s.

The 1.5-second rule. The pack does not have to be the hero, but it has to be on screen, held by talent. Test whether the brand becomes easier to identify while preserving the script.

Test Brand Impact

Extend the hero shot of the bottle by ~0.4s.

Currently the pack reads but doesn't dwell. A short extension gives memory encoding room without breaking pace.

Test Build Brand

Re-cut the end card with a second pack appearance.

Replace the flat logo card with a held bottle plus the seasonal claim. Compare the alternatives while keeping the offer and audience consistent.

Test Build Brand

// 06, where 62 lands in the pool

Benchmark context, when evidence is available.

No verified outcome cohort is attached to this authored example. A live report identifies its cohort, coverage and limitations; an unavailable comparison stays unavailable.

How to read benchmark evidence

Check the platform and audience match, cohort size, and whether the reference is an outcome-calibrated benchmark or a stored scoring cohort. Diagnostic scores alone do not establish engagement or sales lift.

// 07, BuyerLens

Same ad, example buyer questions.

BuyerLens surfaces hypotheses about audience objections. These six authored reactions illustrate how to read them; they are not stored interviews or findings from a completed study.

6example reactions

Exampleevidence status

—no live runtime

—no population estimate

Urban mum, 32, UK Would skip · example

"It's pretty but I don't know what they're selling me. Half a bottle would have done it. I scrolled before the music landed."

Objection: late brand · low intent

Early-career planner, 26, US Would skip · example

"The hand-and-glass shot is the moment. I'd cut everything before second three. Christmas Coca-Cola is already a story I know, you don't need the wind-up."

Objection: pacing · slow opening

Senior buyer, 48, FR Would watch · example

"I like that the brand is not screaming at me. But the bottle is so late, I don't remember whether it was Coca-Cola or Pepsi. Hold the pack longer at the end."

Objection: brand recognition in simulated answers

Gen-Z student, 21, DE Would skip · example

"This is the same Coke ad as ten years ago. I don't have a reason to not skip. Show me something I haven't seen, or pay the influencer."

Objection: pattern fatigue · low novelty

Family driver, 41, ES Would watch · example

"Reminds me of being a kid. I'd watch it once at Christmas. But I see this on Reels at 11pm in May, it does not land. Wrong season, wrong scroll."

Objection: surface-mismatch · seasonal

Performance marketer, 35, AE Would skip · example

"As a buyer I'd look at the hook rate at 1.5 and stop here. Beautiful, expensive, dead on Reels. There is no thumb-stop trigger in frame one."

Objection: no scroll-stop signal

What BuyerLens is, and isn't. A persona-based buyer-rejection diagnosis. Useful for verbatims that feed straight into a re-brief. Not a probabilistic sample of a real population, not a replacement for ethnographic depth, not a predictor of in-market sales. These authored quotes have no interview source links. Live studies show the available respondent evidence and confidence limits. The honest ceiling is on the methodology page.

// 08, the re-brief

The brief, written for you.

The RoastIQ verdict, the BuyerLens verbatims and the recommendation list collapse into one creative brief. Five fields. Hand it to the editor. Re-score the recut against the same composite.

// Brief Authored example brief

Objective

Test earlier product visibility to improve brand clarity while preserving the opening. The next analysis may or may not improve the score.

Audience

Example audience hypothesis: holiday shoppers on Meta Reels. Explore whether familiarity and family associations support the message; these authored reactions cannot establish segment prevalence.

The change, on-screen

Hero pack arrives at 1.2s, held by talent (not as a sting).
Held bottle extended ~0.4s mid-cut for memory encoding.
End card replaced with a second pack appearance + seasonal claim; logo card retired.

What to keep

The hand-and-glass opening shot (Beat the Skip 70 is the ad's strongest signal). Don't recut the audio bed.

Success criteria

Compare the revised brand cue and all five KPIs with the original. Check whether the intended message is clearer without weakening the opening. Use measured campaign outcomes for spending decisions. Check your workspace allowance before running a new analysis.

What this report does not claim. The five RoastIQ diagnostic KPIs are model estimates, not outcome-validated predictions. Separately, the platform-native models have held-out OOS Spearman ρ as of 2026-08-25: +0.33 to +0.40. BuyerLens is a buyer-rejection diagnosis, not a probabilistic sample. We do not predict sales lift, ROAS, attributed conversion or brand recall, those are downstream business outcomes a pre-spend report cannot read.