Setting the file. One moment.
Source Ranking · Discover Brand · anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins · Skills Docs
How to categorize, rank, and prioritize discovered brand sources.
Back to the top of the page 22
Validate Data
Tech Debt
62
Recruiting Pipeline
71
Vendor Check
125
Zoom Meeting SDK Web
88
Vendor Review
181
Create An Asset
Video Sdk/web
Official, approved brand documentation. Highest trust level.
Published style guides or brand books
C-suite or marketing leadership authored/approved
Lives in an official “Brand” folder or Confluence space
Has version numbers or approval dates
Referenced by other documents as “the brand guide”
“Acme Corp Brand Guidelines v3.2.pdf”
“Official Style Guide” page in Confluence Marketing space
Brand book in Google Drive with company-wide sharing
Brand book in Box with company-wide sharing
Official Style Guide in SharePoint Marketing site
Trust weight: 1.0 (baseline)
Brand applied in practice. Shows how guidelines manifest in real content.
Templates actively used by teams
Sales playbooks with messaging guidance
Email sequences with established tone
Presentation templates with brand messaging
“Cold Email Templates Q4 2024”
“Enterprise Sales Playbook”
“Customer Success Response Templates”
Pitch deck templates in Google Slides
Email templates in Outlook
Sales playbook on SharePoint
Implicit brand voice from actual communications.
Sales call transcripts (especially successful ones)
Meeting notes with customer-facing language
Internal discussions about positioning
Slack threads discussing brand decisions
Gong recordings of top performer calls
Meeting notes from brand strategy sessions
Customer success call transcripts
Slack #brand channel discussions about tone
Trust weight: 0.6 (valuable for patterns, not prescriptive)
Background information that informs brand but doesn’t define it directly.
Design files without explicit brand guidelines
Competitor analysis documents
Industry reports
Product documentation
Figma component library (visual only)
“Competitive Landscape Q3 2024”
Product feature specifications
Outdated content superseded by newer versions.
Older version when a newer version exists
Pre-rebrand materials after a rebrand
Documents explicitly marked as deprecated
Content more than 2 years old without updates
“Brand Guidelines v1.0” when v3.2 exists
“2022 Style Guide” when “2024 Brand Update” exists
Documents in an “Archive” or “Deprecated” folder
Trust weight: 0.1 (flag for review, do not rely on)
Apply these five ranking factors in order of priority:
More recent sources are more likely to reflect current brand voice.
Score 1.0 : Updated within last 6 monthsScore 0.7 : Updated within last yearScore 0.4 : Updated within last 2 yearsScore 0.1 : Older than 2 years When two sources conflict, the more recent one wins unless the older source is explicitly marked as the “official” guide.
Always prefer the most recent version of any document. When multiple sources cover the same topic, weight the newest one heavily. Flag any non-AUTHORITATIVE source older than 12 months in the discovery report.
In addition to soft recency scoring, apply hard cutoffs to prevent stale content from polluting discovery:
AUTHORITATIVE sources : No hard cutoff. Official brand guides remain valid regardless of age unless explicitly superseded by a newer version.
OPERATIONAL, CONVERSATIONAL, CONTEXTUAL sources : Exclude from deep fetch if older than 12 months, with one exception: if zero sources in a category fall within the 12-month window, include the single most recent source from that category and flag it as potentially stale.
STALE sources : Exclude entirely from deep fetch. Include in the discovery report for reference only.
These cutoffs apply at the deep-fetch stage (Phase 3). All sources are still collected during broad discovery (Phase 1) and triage (Phase 2) — the cutoffs filter what gets fully retrieved and analyzed.
Sources that explicitly define brand voice outrank those that merely demonstrate it.
Score 1.0 : Explicit brand instructions (“Our voice is…”)Score 0.7 : Documented tone guidelines (“Emails should be…”)Score 0.4 : Implicit patterns in templates or examplesScore 0.2 : Inferred from conversational patterns Higher organizational authority indicates more trustworthy brand definitions.
Score 1.0 : Official brand team or C-suite authoredScore 0.7 : Marketing leadership authoredScore 0.4 : Team leads or senior ICsScore 0.2 : Individual contributor or unknown author Detailed, actionable guidance outranks vague principles.
Score 1.0 : Specific rules with examples (“Use ‘platform’ not ‘tool’”)Score 0.7 : Detailed guidelines (“Tone should be warm but professional”)Score 0.4 : General principles (“Be authentic”)Score 0.2 : Abstract values only (“We believe in innovation”) Elements corroborated across multiple sources rank higher.
Score 1.0 : Appears in 3+ independent sourcesScore 0.7 : Appears in 2 independent sourcesScore 0.4 : Appears in 1 source onlyScore 0.1 : Contradicted by another source Multiply by category trust weight:
Source: “Brand Voice Guidelines v3.2” (Confluence, updated 3 months ago)
Recency: 1.0 (3 months old)
Explicitness: 1.0 (explicit brand instructions)
Authority: 1.0 (marketing VP authored)
Specificity: 0.7 (good guidelines, some gaps)
Consistency: 0.7 (corroborated by email templates)
Category: AUTHORITATIVE (1.0)
Final: (1.0×0.30 + 1.0×0.25 + 1.0×0.20 + 0.7×0.15 + 0.7×0.10) × 1.0 = 0.925 Source: “Top Performer Call — Enterprise Close” (Gong, 2 months ago)
Recency: 1.0
Explicitness: 0.2 (implicit patterns only)
Authority: 0.4 (senior AE)
Specificity: 0.7 (specific phrases used)
Consistency: 0.4 (single source)
Category: CONVERSATIONAL (0.6)
Final: (1.0×0.30 + 0.2×0.25 + 0.4×0.20 + 0.7×0.15 + 0.4×0.10) × 0.6 = 0.345 When discovery finds zero AUTHORITATIVE sources , the scoring algorithm adapts to reflect that conversational and operational sources are the primary brand evidence.
When no authoritative sources exist, conversational patterns carry more prescriptive weight:
Score 0.2 → 0.5 : “Inferred from conversational patterns” — these ARE the brand evidence nowScore 0.4 → 0.6 : “Implicit patterns in templates or examples”Other explicitness scores unchanged
Source: “Top Performer Call — Enterprise Close” (Gong, 2 months ago)
Recency: 1.0
Explicitness: 0.5 (adapted from 0.2 — patterns are primary evidence)
Authority: 0.4 (senior AE)
Specificity: 0.7 (specific phrases used)
Consistency: 0.4 (single source)
Category: CONVERSATIONAL (0.85 adapted)
Adapted score: (1.0×0.30 + 0.5×0.25 + 0.4×0.20 + 0.7×0.15 + 0.4×0.10) × 0.85 = 0.552 This puts the transcript well above the 0.5 deep-fetch threshold, ensuring conversational sources meaningfully contribute to guideline generation.
Apply adaptive scoring when:
Phase 2 triage produces zero AUTHORITATIVE sources
Flag in the discovery report: “No formal brand guidelines found — scoring adapted to weight conversational and operational sources higher”
Ranked score > 0.5
All AUTHORITATIVE sources regardless of score
At least one source per category if available (this overrides the score threshold)
At least one source per platform if available
Sources with conflicting information
STALE sources that may still be referenced by teams
Sources with high specificity but low authority
Ranked score < 0.1
Clearly irrelevant results (e.g., “brand” used in product name, not brand guidelines)
Duplicate content already captured from another platform
references/source-ranking.md