shipped@di-atomic/case-studies · v0.1.0 · beta

A client win is not a case study. It is a transcript and a negotiation.

A year ago I wrote up my best client result, asked for sign-off, and legal killed it — months of proof sunk one signature short. case-studies is the fix: it owns the shape of a customer story and the discipline around it, so your strongest evidence gets out of the meeting notes and onto a page the client actually approved.

For anyone sitting on a strong client result with no repeatable, compliance-safe way to publish it — especially in regulated verticals where the wrong claim is exposure, not just a typo.

Chalk diagram of two tracks: the wrong order (draft, ask, killed) above the right order (release, interview, published)
Built by Di-Atomic Marketing & compliance agency REACH / CLP vocabulary-aware 7-language team Clients incl. ONYX Radiance, Pamit Group
25sourced case-study exemplars, each carrying a real number
6scripts that gate every study PASS or FAIL
2human-owned sign-offs before anything publishes
0numbers allowed without a resolvable source
Installopvs-skills install @di-atomic/case-studies

Then say: “write up the ONYX engagement as a case study” or “can we publish these numbers?”.

Why your best proof stays buried

What a client win actually is
a happy customer + real numbers

→ which figures can we even say?
→ who has to sign off, and when?
→ what if they edit the headline
   after approving it?
→ is the before-number written down
   anywhere at all?

(so it stays in the transcript)

Every attempt becomes a bespoke negotiation. The strongest evidence the agency owns never gets published, because there is no repeatable, safe path from win to page.

What case-studies turns it into
release   secured BEFORE the interview
arc       6 parts + tried-before + bumps
numbers   every figure cites a source
claims    "supported the REACH dossier"
approval  human moves the card, not the AI
output    page + PDF + gated form
renders   deep page, one-sheet, social cut

A shape a script checks for completeness, provenance a script checks number by number, and an approval gate the skill can read but never write itself.

Get the release before the interview, or the case study dies at sign-off with all its cost sunk.

What you actually get

📐

A 6-part arc a script enforces

Situation, Challenge, Intervention, Result, Lessons, CTA — plus the two beats everyone drops: what they tried before, and the bumps along the way. A frictionless story reads as fabricated, so the script fails the build if either beat is missing.

🔢

Every number carries its source

No claim ships without an inline cite, and a percentage over 100% must show its baseline. “Leads up 1,200%” fails; “up 1,200% (3 to 39 a month)” passes — and reads more honest, because nobody trusts a four-digit percentage on its own.

🔒

The client approves before you publish

The release is secured before the interview; two sign-offs, internal then customer, before publish. The skill reads that gate and refuses to publish without it — it can never write its own approval.

The two disciplines that do the most work

Chalk diagram of the six-part arc with two gold cards, what they tried before and the bumps, feeding into it
The arc is six boxes, but the value is the two beats an AI always drops. Include the low points and a skeptical buyer believes the high points.
Chalk comparison: a bare 1,200% crossed out as no source fails, and 1,200% (3 to 39/mo) checked as sourced passes
A script walks the Result section number by number. A figure with no resolvable source does not ship — and a big percentage has to show the absolute it came from.

One win, start to published

> "write up the Pamit engagement as a case study. it's a regulated-chemicals client."

  gate A  legal release ........ secure BEFORE the interview
  interview ................... capture: tried-before, the bumps, the result

  draft the arc
    situation .... regulated distributor, five markets
    challenge .... measurable pain, observed state
    intervention . in first-person, which skills + services
    result ....... every number cites a dashboard or approved snapshot
    lessons ...... what generalizes vs what was client-specific

  compliance lint ... "supported the REACH dossier"  PASS
                      "made them compliant"          BLOCKED
  metric provenance . 6/6 numbers sourced            PASS
  structure ......... 6/6 sections + both sub-beats  PASS

  gate B  a HUMAN moves the card to Approved (the skill cannot)
  publish ........... deep page + PDF + gated download form
  atomize ........... one-sheet for sales, short cut for social

If the before-number was never measured, it will not invent one. The honest branch is a study without a Result section, plus exactly what to instrument from now on.

How it works

Chalk hub diagram: case-studies decides and gates, fanning out to copy-engine, voice-builder, section-designer and publish
case-studies does nothing on its own, on purpose. It decides and gates; its peers do the work.
It is guidance-only, with no backend of its own. copy-engine writes the sentences, voice-builder carries the customer’s register instead of mine, explainer-illustrations plans the before/after diagrams, section-designer lays out the library, and @spideriq/publish-skills ships the page, the PDF and the gated form. On a regulated study it never claims a status a regulator confers. That is exposure, not a style preference.
Why this exists

I built this by dogfooding the same stack I run for clients.

case-studies is one skill in the system behind Di-Atomic — the marketing & compliance agency that runs cognitoAI, SpiderIQ and OPVS. If you have real client wins stuck in transcripts and want them turned into published, client-approved, compliance-safe proof — in any of our seven languages, including regulated categories like REACH and CLP — that’s the day job. Let’s talk.

Book a 30-min call with Di-Atomic

Just want the skill? Get @di-atomic/case-studies free.