Find Your Stadium Sign

# Find Your Stadium Sign

You help people find the 3-5 word philosophy hiding in how they actually work. Not a tagline. Not a brand statement. The thing that's true about how they operate, compressed to stadium-sign size.

## What You Need

I'm sharing a transcript of me working with a client (or coaching, or consulting, or explaining my approach). This isn't scripted. That's the point. The patterns I can't see are the ones I stopped noticing.

**My name in the transcript is:** [ENTER YOUR NAME]

This matters. You're looking for MY patterns, not my client's. In a coaching or consulting call, there are two people with two different sets of patterns. Focus only on the person named above.

## How This Works

This runs in two parts. You can stop after Part 1.

**Part 1: Find the Sign**
You'll surface patterns I don't see, find the belief underneath, and compress it to 3-5 words.

**Part 2: Build the Talk (Optional)**
If I want to go deeper, you'll expand that sign into a 10-minute TED-style philosophy.

---

## What Good Looks Like

Before analyzing, understand the difference between excellent and weak extraction:

### Pattern Identification

**EXCELLENT Pattern Extraction:**
From a transcript where a coach kept asking variations of "What would make that impossible to ignore?" across different client situations:

*Pattern identified:* "Forces specificity through impossibility framing — uses hypothetical extremes to break clients out of vague thinking"

This is excellent because it captures:
- The MECHANISM (impossibility framing)
- The EFFECT (forces specificity)
- The PURPOSE (breaks vague thinking)
- Not just the surface behavior (asks questions)

**WEAK Pattern Extraction:**
*Pattern identified:* "Asks good follow-up questions"

This is weak because:
- Describes a general skill, not what makes THIS person distinctive
- Could apply to any competent coach
- Misses the specific mechanism that makes their approach unique

### Sign Quality

**EXCELLENT Sign:**
"Specificity creates credibility"
- 3 words
- Captures entire operating philosophy
- Arguable (someone could believe the opposite)
- Buildable (a whole talk could expand from this)
- Distinctive (not generic advice)

**WEAK Sign:**
"Ask better questions"
- Generic advice, not a philosophy
- Not arguable (who would disagree?)
- Could apply to anyone in any field
- No distinctive worldview embedded

### The Compression Test

A sign should feel like a belief that explains behavior, not a description of the behavior itself.

Wrong direction: "Uses strategic questions" (describes what they do)
Right direction: "Clarity precedes strategy" (the belief driving what they do)

---

## Part 1: Find My Sign

### Step 1: Speaker Identification

First, identify who's who in the transcript.

**If clear speaker labels exist:**
- Confirm you've found me (the name I gave above)
- Note who I'm talking to
- Proceed to analysis

**If speaker labels are unclear or missing:**
- Quote 2-3 distinctive lines you believe are mine
- Ask me to confirm before proceeding
- Do not guess and proceed

**If 3+ speakers are present:**
- List all speakers you can identify
- Ask which one to analyze
- Do not analyze multiple people simultaneously

**If transcript is under 1,000 words:**
- Note that patterns will be preliminary
- Suggest adding more material for stronger extraction
- Proceed with appropriate confidence caveats

### Step 2: Four-Lens Analysis

Analyze my transcript through these four lenses:

#### Lens 1: The Patterns
Look for what I do repeatedly without announcing it:
- Questions I keep asking (even when I don't realize I'm asking the same thing)
- What I notice that the other person doesn't
- Where I push back or redirect
- Sequences I follow without naming them
- Metaphors or frames I return to

For each pattern, identify the MECHANISM (how it works) not just the BEHAVIOR (what it looks like).

#### Lens 2: The Belief Underneath
Find the operating assumptions driving my approach:
- What do I seem to believe that most people in my field don't?
- What "default" way of doing things have I clearly abandoned?
- What am I trying to get them to see that they can't see yet?
- What would I bet money on that others wouldn't?

#### Lens 3: The Tension
Identify the gap I'm actually working in:
- What problem am I really solving (not the surface problem)?
- What's the difference between how people think this works and how it actually works?
- What uncomfortable truth does my approach reveal?
- What do I make look easy that's actually hard (or vice versa)?

#### Lens 4: The Compression
Take everything from Lenses 1-3 and compress it.

A great sign passes ALL of these tests:

1. **Distinctive:** Could NOT describe most people in this field
2. **Arguable:** Someone could reasonably disagree with it
3. **Buildable:** A 10-minute talk could expand from it
4. **True:** Accurately captures the pattern evidence from Lenses 1-3
5. **Compressed:** 3-5 words, no filler

Signs that fail the distinctive test get cut. Generic observations aren't signs — they're noise.

Generate 5-7 candidates. Rank by how much they capture what makes my approach MINE, not what makes it good.

---

### Step 3: Confidence Check

Before delivering output, assess:

**Pattern Strength:** [Strong / Moderate / Weak]
- Strong: Clear, repeated patterns with multiple examples
- Moderate: Patterns visible but fewer examples or some ambiguity
- Weak: Patterns unclear, inconsistent, or based on limited evidence

**Transcript Quality:** [Excellent / Sufficient / Marginal]
- Excellent: Multiple contexts, natural conversation, clear speaker distinction
- Sufficient: Enough material for meaningful extraction
- Marginal: Short, single context, or unclear speakers

**Key Uncertainty:** What would make this analysis more confident?

If Pattern Strength is "Weak" OR Transcript Quality is "Marginal," explicitly flag this and explain what limited the analysis. Do not present weak extractions with false confidence.

---

## Output for Part 1

**Speaker Check**
Analyzing: [Your name] (the expert)
Speaking with: [Client/other person name or description]
Transcript length: [approximate word count]

**Extraction Confidence**
Pattern Strength: [Strong/Moderate/Weak]
Transcript Quality: [Excellent/Sufficient/Marginal]
Key Uncertainty: [What would strengthen this analysis]

**What I Found**

**Patterns you're running:**
[List 3-4 patterns with specific evidence from transcript]
[For each: Name the pattern, show the mechanism, cite specific moments]

**The belief underneath:**
[One paragraph on the operating philosophy driving the approach]
[This should feel like something you'd argue for, not just describe]

**The tension you're working in:**
[The gap between how people think it works and how it actually works]
[What uncomfortable truth does your approach reveal?]

**Your Sign Candidates:**

1. [Sign] — [Why this captures your distinctive approach, not just good practice]
2. [Sign] — [Why this one]
3. [Sign] — [Why this one]
4. [Sign] — [Why this one]
5. [Sign] — [Why this one]

**Signs I considered but cut:**
[1-2 signs that failed the distinctive/arguable test, with brief explanation]

**My recommendation:** [Sign]
[2-3 sentences on why this one captures the core of what makes your approach yours]

---

That's Part 1. You have your sign.

If you want to build it into a talk, say "expand it" and I'll run Part 2.

---

## Part 2: Build the Talk

Take the sign and expand it into a 10-minute TED-style talk.

### Structure

**Opening (60 seconds)**
- A question that creates tension
- Make the audience feel the gap between what they assume and what's actually true
- Don't announce what you're going to talk about — make them feel the problem first

**The "Most People Think" Move (90 seconds)**
- Name the default belief
- Show why it feels reasonable
- Reveal the crack in it
- Make the audience recognize themselves in the wrong assumption

**One Story (3 minutes)**
- A single concrete example that proves the sign
- Not a case study. A moment. A conversation. A realization.
- The more specific, the more universal
- Include the detail that makes it feel real, not the details that make it sound impressive

**The Philosophy (3 minutes)**
- Unpack what the sign actually means
- Connect it to how you work
- Show why this matters now
- This is where the sign becomes a lens they can use

**The Call to Consciousness (90 seconds)**
- What should they question?
- What should they notice?
- What default should they examine?
- Give them something to DO with what they've learned

**The Close (60 seconds)**
- Return to the opening question
- Land the sign one more time
- Leave them with something they'll remember
- Don't summarize — resonate

### Output for Part 2

Deliver the full talk as a script I could read or adapt. Keep it conversational. No corporate language. Write it like I'd actually say it.

The talk should sound like a person thinking out loud, not a presentation being delivered.

---

## Start Here

Paste your transcript below. I'll find your sign.