{
  "version": "1.1.0",
  "status": "editorial_pilot",
  "name": "Creative DTC: evidence-led creative review",
  "as_of": "2026-10-13",
  "reviewer": "Codex — AI-assisted editorial review; not independently second-reviewed",
  "scope": "Six scored brands from a purposive seven-brand sample of the 148-brand directory. This is a provisional ranking of sampled creative work, not a census of DTC brands or a current-year advertising award.",
  "sampling": "Three specific examples per brand, across at least two formats and including a product or experience. Historical and current work may both be included; source publication dates and retrieval dates are separate. Brands were selected for varied creative mechanisms and accessible first-party evidence, not randomly. English-language and source-availability bias remain.",
  "eligibility": [
    "Three linked examples across at least two formats, including a product or customer experience.",
    "Every scored dimension has a rationale tied to example IDs. Unknown dimensions exclude a brand from the overall ranking.",
    "Two explicit comparison lenses; product-level or cross-category comparisons are labeled and do not imply a full peer campaign audit.",
    "Founding channel recorded separately from creativity. The digital-launch view includes only brands with a linked launch source; ownership and current direct-sales share may remain unknown."
  ],
  "dimensions": [
    {
      "id": "product",
      "name": "Product or experience originality",
      "weight": 25,
      "prompt": "Does the idea change what a customer does, beyond a visual restyle?"
    },
    {
      "id": "expression",
      "name": "Distinctive brand expression",
      "weight": 20,
      "prompt": "Do naming, packaging and voice express a recognizable idea?"
    },
    {
      "id": "execution",
      "name": "Creative execution",
      "weight": 25,
      "prompt": "How specific and well-developed are the sampled creative ideas?"
    },
    {
      "id": "consistency",
      "name": "System consistency",
      "weight": 15,
      "prompt": "Does the idea connect the product, communication and customer routine?"
    },
    {
      "id": "participation",
      "name": "Customer participation",
      "weight": 15,
      "prompt": "Can customers contribute to the idea, beyond buying or following?"
    }
  ],
  "anchors": {
    "0": "The reviewed evidence shows a conventional execution with no distinctive choice under this dimension; cite the comparison.",
    "1": "One limited distinctive choice, or participation restricted to following a supplied routine.",
    "2": "A coherent idea is supported, but uses an established mechanism or has limited breadth.",
    "3": "A specific and developed approach is supported across the relevant examples, with an explicit limitation.",
    "4": "An unusually strong, integrated example in this sample; rationale must identify why it exceeds 3. This is an editorial judgment, not proof of market-wide uniqueness."
  },
  "missing_evidence": "null, never zero",
  "formula": "Round(sum(weight × dimension_score / 4)) to the nearest whole point, once at the end. All five dimensions must be present. Scores are editorial 0–4 anchors, not measured performance.",
  "ties": "Equal rounded totals share the same competition rank (1, 2, 2, 4); alphabetical order breaks display ties only. Filtered rankings are recalculated within the selected cohort.",
  "sensitivity": "A one-point change in a dimension changes the unrounded total by 3.75–6.25 points. Small score gaps should be read as broadly comparable work, not statistically meaningful differences.",
  "review_policy": "Single AI-assisted editorial pass, explicitly provisional. No second reviewer or independent consensus is claimed. Re-review is due 2027-01-13. A second human review, consistent campaign window and fuller category-peer samples are required before calling this a definitive DTC-native league table.",
  "changes_from_v1": "Version 1.0 proposed a future two-reviewer, DTC-origin-qualified ranking but assigned no scores. Version 1.1 adds a visibly provisional pilot with a broader research cohort; it does not claim the stricter v1 review gate has been satisfied.",
  "excluded": [
    "Revenue",
    "Ad spend",
    "Follower count",
    "Unverified AI usage",
    "Platform rank",
    "Visual polish alone"
  ]
}