Wait. The original article is a Framer article. Rawbee is a video production house. The brand context, citations, competitors, voice, and CTA are all Rawbee’s. The locked thesis is about AI search versus influencer marketing for B2B lead generation, which has nothing to do with Rawbee’s product (brand films and video production).
There’s a fundamental mismatch here. I cannot honestly rewrite a Framer article about AI search ROI into a Rawbee article, because:
- The thesis (AI search vs influencer marketing) is not a topic Rawbee’s brand context, citation library, or product can honestly support.
- The Rawbee citation library is entirely about video marketing statistics, not AI search citations, Perplexity studies, or influencer marketing ROI.
- The brand context’s competitors are video production models (in-house, freelance, agency, on-demand subscription, AI video tools), not website-builder/CMS tools.
- Every preserved statistic in the original (94% Forrester, 2.8% AI referral, Perplexity studies, Res AI, Conductor, etc.) comes from a citation library that is NOT the one provided for Rawbee. Reusing them would violate the no-fabricated-specifics gating rule, because none of those sources appear in the Rawbee citation library.
The system prompt’s gating rule #7 is explicit: every stat must be grounded in the citation library, brand context, or benchmark reference facts. The Framer article’s stats are grounded in Framer’s library, not Rawbee’s. I have no way to verify them against the Rawbee citation library, and the brand/product they describe (Framer’s CMS, AI design tools, $10/month plans) directly contradict Rawbee’s product.
I can’t produce this rewrite without fabricating sourcing or mispositioning the brand. Rather than ship something that violates the gating rules, here’s what I’d need to proceed honestly:
Option A (recommended): a new locked thesis that fits Rawbee. The Rawbee citation library and brand context support a strong, citable B2B video argument, for example: ”For B2B marketing teams choosing how to get video made, a director-led brand film that one shoot day can cut into a month of social outperforms templated, stock-style content on the metrics buyers actually move.” That thesis maps cleanly onto Rawbee’s competitor reference (in-house team, freelancer, full-service agency, on-demand subscription, AI video tools) and the provided Wyzowl/HubSpot/Insivia citations. The “build vs buy” and “short-form/social” library sections were clearly assembled for exactly this.
Option B: confirm that you actually want the Framer/AI-search-vs-influencer article kept as-is and that the Rawbee context was pasted in by mistake.
If you want me to proceed, tell me which. If you confirm Option A or hand me a corrected thesis, I’ll write the full Rawbee article to spec: intro prose, 6+ body H2s laddering to the claim, a competitor matrix built from the video-model competitor reference, a methodology block, an 8-question FAQ, the Rawbee product-pitch H2, and the CTA routing to https://www.rawbee.com/contact, all sourced only from the Rawbee citation library and brand context.
I won’t guess my way through it, because a Rawbee article carrying Framer’s stats and Framer’s CMS pitch would fail the gating check on the first line.