Orchestration Log: When this skill is activated, append a log entry to
outputs/orchestration_log.md:### Skill Activation: Positioning Engine **Timestamp:** [current date/time] **Actor:** AI Agent (positioning-engine) **Input:** Paper draft + [N] comparison papers identified **Output:** Differentiation matrix with [N] dimensions, positioning_analysis.md saved
Positioning Engine
Core Principle
"How is your paper different from X?" is the question every reviewer asks. This engine produces a systematic answer. It identifies the 5-10 most similar existing papers, builds a structured differentiation matrix, and generates a positioning statement that makes the unique contribution explicit and defensible.
The output directly strengthens the Introduction (gap + contribution paragraphs) and the Discussion (theoretical implications).
When to Activate
- User says "position my paper", "how is this different from X?", "differentiation"
- User says "compare to related work", "positioning analysis", "unique contribution"
- During Phase 2 (Framing) to sharpen the gap and contribution
- When a reviewer challenges the novelty or contribution
- User runs
/analyze-positioning
Prerequisites
draft.mdorpaper.texexists (to understand the paper's claims)references.biband/orliterature_base.csvexist (comparison candidates)- Research questions and contribution are at least tentatively defined
Step 1: IDENTIFY Closest Competitors
Finding the Most Similar Papers
Sources for comparison papers:
- From the paper itself: Papers cited in the Introduction and Related Work that address the same or very similar research questions
- From
literature_base.csv: Papers with the highest topical overlap - From snowballing: Forward citations of the paper's key references that appeared after those references were published
- Direct search: Search for papers with very similar titles or identical keywords
Selection Criteria
Select 5-10 papers that are the closest competitors — papers that a reviewer might say "but Author X already did this." These are papers that:
- Address the same or very similar research questions
- Study the same phenomenon in a similar context
- Use a similar methodology
- Apply the same theoretical lens
- Were published recently (high overlap risk)
Output
For each selected paper, extract:
{
"bib_key": "[key]",
"title": "[title]",
"authors": "[authors]",
"year": [year],
"venue": "[venue]",
"rq": "[their research question or objective]",
"method": "[their method]",
"theory": "[their theoretical lens]",
"context": "[their empirical context]",
"key_finding": "[their main finding]",
"similarity_to_ours": "high/medium",
"citation_count": [N]
}
Step 2: BUILD Differentiation Matrix
Matrix Structure
Build a table comparing the competitor papers against YOUR paper across key dimensions:
## Differentiation Matrix
| Dimension | Our Paper | [Author1 (Year)] | [Author2 (Year)] | [Author3 (Year)] | ... |
|-----------|-----------|-------------------|-------------------|-------------------|-----|
| **Research Question** | [our RQ] | [their RQ] | [their RQ] | [their RQ] | |
| **Theoretical Lens** | [our theory] | [their theory] | [their theory] | [their theory] | |
| **Method** | [our method] | [their method] | [their method] | [their method] | |
| **Context/Sample** | [our context] | [their context] | [their context] | [their context] | |
| **Time Period** | [our period] | [their period] | [their period] | [their period] | |
| **Technology Focus** | [our tech] | [their tech] | [their tech] | [their tech] | |
| **Unit of Analysis** | [our UoA] | [their UoA] | [their UoA] | [their UoA] | |
| **Key Contribution** | [our contribution] | [their contribution] | [their contribution] | [their contribution] | |
| **Scope** | [our scope] | [their scope] | [their scope] | [their scope] | |
Dimension Selection
Choose 6-10 dimensions that are most relevant for differentiation. Common dimensions:
| Dimension | When to Use |
|---|---|
| Research Question / Objective | Always |
| Theoretical Lens | When theory is a differentiator |
| Method | When method is a differentiator |
| Context / Industry / Sample | When context is new |
| Time Period / Technology Generation | When recency matters |
| Level of Analysis (individual, team, org, industry) | When level differs |
| Unit of Analysis | When what's being studied differs |
| Geographic / Cultural Context | For cross-cultural studies |
| Dependent Variables / Outcomes | When outcomes differ |
| Stage of Adoption / Maturity | For implementation studies |
| Practitioner vs. Academic Focus | For applied research |
Step 3: ANALYZE Positioning
Gap Identification
From the differentiation matrix, identify:
-
Unique dimensions: Where does our paper differ from ALL competitors?
- These are the strongest positioning arguments
-
Underrepresented combinations: What combination of dimensions is new?
- Even if individual dimensions are not new, the combination may be
-
Temporal advantage: What has changed since the competitors published?
- New technology, new phenomena, new policy context
-
Methodological gap: What method has NOT been applied to this topic?
- E.g., many surveys, no case studies; many qualitative, no quantitative
-
Contextual gap: What context has NOT been studied?
- E.g., many US studies, no European context; many large enterprises, no SMEs
Positioning Patterns
Classify the paper's positioning into one or more patterns:
| Pattern | Description | Strength |
|---|---|---|
| New phenomenon | Studies something that didn't exist before | Very strong |
| New context | Applies known theories to unstudied context | Strong |
| New method | Uses a method not yet applied to this topic | Strong |
| New theory | Applies a theory not yet used for this topic | Medium-Strong |
| Integration | Combines previously separate research streams | Medium |
| Replication | Tests prior findings in new setting | Medium |
| Update | Revisits topic after significant change | Medium |
| Deeper | Goes beyond surface-level prior work | Depends on execution |
Step 4: GENERATE Positioning Statement
Positioning Paragraph Template
Generate a paragraph that can be directly inserted into the Introduction (Gap section) or Related Work:
While prior work has made important contributions to understanding [topic],
significant opportunities for advancement remain. Table [N] compares our study
to the most closely related work. [Author1] (Year) [their focus], but [key
difference from our paper]. Similarly, [Author2] (Year) [their contribution],
yet [what they don't address that we do]. [Author3] (Year) comes closest to
our work in [dimension], but differs in [key differentiator: method/context/theory].
Our study extends this body of work in [N] key ways. First, [unique dimension 1].
While prior studies have [what they did], we [what we do differently]. Second,
[unique dimension 2]. Third, [unique dimension 3, if applicable].
Contribution Refinement
Based on the positioning analysis, refine the contribution statement:
## Refined Contribution Statement
Based on the positioning analysis, the paper's unique contribution is:
1. **[Contribution 1]** — This is unique because no prior study has [specific gap].
Closest competitor: [Author (Year)] who [what they did, but not this].
2. **[Contribution 2]** — This extends [theory/method] by [specific extension].
Unlike [Author (Year)] who [their approach], we [our approach].
3. **[Contribution 3]** — Practical contribution: [specific practical value].
This goes beyond [Author (Year)]'s [their practical contribution] by [how].