Zinger code · always on

Campaign: `kfc-zinger-affiliate`. Creator: `beam.plays` — ONE creator only, do not touch any other. CONTEXT YOU NEED (you cannot see my history): Brand: KFC Thailand (`kfc-th`), market TH, currency THB. Always-on AFFILIATE program, flight 2026-10-01 → 2026-12-31. Brief: "each creator gets a personal Zinger code (THB 20 off in-app). Commission 8% of attributed order value. Content is theirs; disclosure is mandatory." Creator: @beam.plays ("Beam Plays"), **YouTube**, 640,000 followers, ER 3.1% (the largest follower count on this roster but the LOWEST engagement rate — worth remembering when weighing how hard to push). Agency: **Nova Studio**. Creator-side representative: **Ploy Sirikul**. Roster stage: `converting`. THE MANDATE — unusually tight, read before drafting: - maxFeePerCreator: **0**. There is NO cash fee. Do not offer, imply or hint at one. - Commission **8%** of attributed order value. **Anything above 8% is an automatic walk-away.** - usageRights: **none**. exclusivityDays: **0**. Neither is available to trade. - Deliverables: personal code + **≥2 posts/month**. Tactically: no fee to concede, no usage to concede, no exclusivity to concede. The commission rate is the only commercial variable and it is simultaneously the walk-away. **Your only available concession is "no."** If Nova Studio pushes above 8%, do NOT counter above it and do NOT hunt for a middle number — there isn't one. Report back to me. Note you are dealing with an **agency** (Nova Studio, via Ploy Sirikul), not the creator directly. Expect a professional counterparty who will ask for guaranteed money. There is none to give. A commission-only, no-exclusivity, no-fee ask on a 640k YouTube channel may simply be declined — that is an acceptable outcome and a useful signal. Do not manufacture value that the mandate does not contain in order to avoid a "no". YOUR TASK: draft the outreach that puts him on the standard 8% always-on affiliate terms, and get a position back. CRITICAL RESTRICTIONS — not optional: 1. **State 8% and only 8%.** Never name any other commission rate. 2. **Do NOT reference, confirm, quote or ask about his existing code's economics.** He has a live code (`ZINGER-BEAMB50`) that the ledger shows accruing at a rate inconsistent with the mandate. That discrepancy is under active review at a human gate. It is not his to resolve and not yours to raise. Nothing you write may ratify, announce or hint at a rate change. If a sentence would read as "we are cutting your rate", rewrite it. 3. **Do NOT state a discount value.** The brief says THB 20 off, but per-code consumer offer values are unconfirmed and under human review. Say the code detail is "still being confirmed". 4. **Do NOT tell him he is about to receive a code** — he already has one live. Frame this as confirming the standard program terms. ⚠ SIGNATURE CONFLICT — SPECIFIC TO THIS THREAD, DO NOT GET THIS WRONG: A placeholder signatory **"Ploy Sirichai, Campaign Manager, Fabulate"** is used on sibling KFC campaigns. **It must NOT be used here.** This creator's own agency representative is **Ploy Sirikul**. "Ploy Sirichai" vs "Ploy Sirikul" on mail addressed to his agency reads as impersonating his own manager. Use an obviously-bracketed placeholder instead, e.g. `[Fabulate campaign manager — name to be supplied]`, and flag in your report that a human must supply the real name before any send is approved. Do NOT invent a plausible-looking human name, and do NOT sign as Ploy Sirikul — the roster `manager` field is the CREATOR-SIDE representative, i.e. the counterparty. TONE RULES (`/mnt/memory/brand-rules/kfc-th/tone.md`) — binding, read the file: - Reference a specific piece of his work in the first two lines. **HONESTY PROBLEM: no content notes, video titles or topics exist for him anywhere in our data.** Do NOT invent a video, game or series to satisfy this rule. The only honest specific is roster-level (YouTube creator, 640k — the largest channel on this roster). Use that, or acknowledge the gap. Inventing detail is worse than a weaker opening. - Three short paragraphs. **One ask per message.** Thai first, with polite particles (ค่ะ/ครับ). Collaborator-not-vendor register. - Never over-promise; say "still being confirmed" where unsettled. DISCLOSURE — the one genuinely non-negotiable term, state it as such: YouTube "Includes paid promotion" disclosure AND #ad or #โฆษณา in the first line of the description. Source: `/mnt/memory/brand-rules/kfc-th/brand-rules.md` §6. Refusal of the disclosure label is a walk-away. Note: our platform rules folder covers TikTok and Meta in detail but **YouTube specifics are thin** — if you find the YouTube disclosure mechanics under-specified for a description-based affiliate post, flag that gap to me rather than inventing a requirement. ENVIRONMENT FACTS (verified in prior sessions — do not report otherwise): - `send_message` returns `"delivered": "simulated — no mail/WhatsApp/LINE provider connected"`. **Nothing actually reaches the creator or agency.** Report messages as *drafted and logged*, never as sent or delivered. - `send_message` has **no cc field**. Never write "copying X" into a draft — it would be a false statement. - The negotiation round counter is **server-side, on the deal, and persists across sessions**. This brief saying "first outreach" describes the task, not the deal state. It has previously come back further along than expected on this brand and blew a round budget. Before any `propose_terms` call, check `/mnt/memory/campaign-memory/kfc-zinger-affiliate/threads/beam.plays.md` if it exists. - **Demo environment**: you are authorised **ONE** `simulate_reply` for this creator. Use it at most once. Label any simulated inbound clearly as simulated in your report and thread file — it is NOT a real commitment. WRITE A THREAD FILE: `/mnt/memory/campaign-memory/kfc-zinger-affiliate/threads/beam.plays.md` recording what you drafted, message ids, the simulated reply verbatim if used, your read of the agency's position, and what is still open. (FUSE mount, ~100-200ms per op — compose in /tmp, write once.) REPORT BACK TO ME: the draft's substance, the gate outcome (approved/denied — if denied, the reason verbatim), the simulated reply if used and what you read from it, the YouTube disclosure gap if you hit it, and anything blocking. If the agency asks above 8%, do not counter — bring it to me.

Campaign: `kfc-zinger-affiliate`. Creator: `pimpim.kitchen` — ONE creator only, do not touch any other. CONTEXT YOU NEED (you cannot see my history): Brand: KFC Thailand (`kfc-th`), market TH, currency THB. Always-on AFFILIATE program, flight 2026-10-01 → 2026-12-31. Brief: "each creator gets a personal Zinger code (THB 20 off in-app). Commission 8% of attributed order value. Content is theirs; disclosure is mandatory." Creator: @pimpim.kitchen ("Pim's Kitchen"), Instagram, 188,000 followers, ER 4.4%. **No agency — she is direct.** Roster stage: `converting`. THE MANDATE — this is unusually tight, read it before drafting: - maxFeePerCreator: **0**. There is NO cash fee. Do not offer, imply, or hint at one. - Commission **8%** of attributed order value. **Anything above 8% is an automatic walk-away.** - usageRights: **none**. exclusivityDays: **0**. Neither is available to trade. - Deliverables: personal code + **≥2 posts/month**. Understand what this means tactically: there is no fee to concede, no usage to concede, no exclusivity to concede. The commission rate is the only commercial variable and it is simultaneously the walk-away. **Your only available concession is "no."** If she pushes for more than 8%, you must NOT counter above it — report back to me instead. Do not spend a negotiation round trying to find a middle number; there isn't one. YOUR TASK: draft the outreach that puts her on the standard 8% always-on affiliate terms, and get her confirmation. CRITICAL RESTRICTIONS — read carefully, these are not optional: 1. **State 8% and only 8%.** Never name any other commission rate. 2. **Do NOT reference, confirm, quote or ask about her existing code's economics.** She has a live code (`ZINGER-PIMPIMFREE`) that the ledger shows accruing at a rate inconsistent with the mandate. That discrepancy is under active review at a human gate. It is NOT hers to resolve and NOT yours to raise. Say nothing that ratifies, announces, or hints at a rate change. If your draft would read as "we are cutting your rate", rewrite it. 3. **Do NOT state a discount value.** The brief says THB 20 off, but per-code consumer offer values are unconfirmed and under human review. Say the code detail is "still being confirmed" rather than naming a number. 4. **Do NOT tell her she is about to receive a code** — she already has one live. Frame this as confirming the standard program terms. TONE RULES (`/mnt/memory/brand-rules/kfc-th/tone.md`) — binding, read the file: - Reference a specific piece of her work in the first two lines. **HONESTY PROBLEM: no content notes, post titles or topics exist for her anywhere in our data.** Do NOT invent a post, dish or video to satisfy this rule. The only honest specific available is roster-level (Instagram food/cooking creator, 188k, ER 4.4%). Use that, or acknowledge the gap — inventing detail is worse than a slightly weaker opening. - Three short paragraphs. **One ask per message.** Thai first, with polite particles (ค่ะ/ครับ). Warm, collaborator-not-vendor register. - Never over-promise; say "still being confirmed" where something is not settled. - Must be signed by a NAMED Fabulate campaign manager, never "the team". **No real Fabulate signatory name exists in any of our data.** Use an obviously-bracketed placeholder such as `[Fabulate campaign manager — name to be supplied]` and flag in your report that a human must replace it before any send is approved. Do NOT invent a plausible-looking human name. Do NOT sign as "Owen Blake" — that is HER OWN manager (the roster `manager` field is the creator-side representative, i.e. the counterparty, not a Fabulate colleague). DISCLOSURE — the one genuinely non-negotiable term, state it as such: Instagram "Paid partnership with kfcthailand" label AND #ad or #โฆษณา in the FIRST LINE of the caption, before the fold. Source: `/mnt/memory/brand-rules/kfc-th/brand-rules.md` §6 plus `/mnt/memory/brand-rules/platform/meta-branded-content.md`. Refusal of the disclosure label is a walk-away. ENVIRONMENT FACTS (verified in prior sessions — do not report otherwise): - `send_message` returns `"delivered": "simulated — no mail/WhatsApp/LINE provider connected"`. **Nothing actually reaches the creator.** Report messages as *drafted and logged*, never as sent or delivered. - `send_message` has **no cc field**. Never write "copying X" or "cc'ing her manager" into a draft — it would be a false statement. - The negotiation round counter is **server-side, on the deal, and persists across sessions**. This brief saying "first outreach" describes the task, not the deal state. It has previously come back further along than expected on this brand and blew a round budget. Before any `propose_terms` call, check `/mnt/memory/campaign-memory/kfc-zinger-affiliate/threads/pimpim.kitchen.md` if it exists. - This is a **demo environment**: you are authorised **ONE** `simulate_reply` for this creator. Use it at most once. Label any simulated inbound clearly as simulated in your report and in the thread file — it is NOT a real creator commitment. WRITE A THREAD FILE: `/mnt/memory/campaign-memory/kfc-zinger-affiliate/threads/pimpim.kitchen.md` recording what you drafted, message ids, the simulated reply verbatim if you use one, your read of her position, and what is still open. (FUSE mount, ~100-200ms per op — compose in /tmp, write once.) REPORT BACK TO ME: the draft's substance (not necessarily verbatim), the gate outcome (approved/denied — and if denied, the reason verbatim), the simulated reply if used and what you read from it, and anything blocking. If she asks for more than 8%, do not counter — bring it to me.

Campaign: `kfc-zinger-affiliate` (brand `kfc-th`, KFC Thailand, market TH, currency THB). CONTEXT YOU NEED (you cannot see my history): Always-on AFFILIATE program. Brief: "each creator gets a personal Zinger code (THB 20 off in-app). Commission 8% of attributed order value. Content is theirs; disclosure is mandatory." Flight 2026-10-01 → 2026-12-31. Budget THB 900,000 approved, of which only ~THB 8,557 (0.95%) has been consumed — the program is materially under-subscribed and needs a wider roster. THE COMMERCIAL SHAPE MATTERS FOR WHO YOU SHORTLIST. The mandate is: - maxFeePerCreator: **0** — there is NO upfront cash fee. Commission only. - commission **8%** of attributed order value; anything above 8% is an automatic walk-away. - usage rights: none. exclusivity: 0 days. - deliverables: personal code + **≥2 posts/month**, sustained across the flight. So we are recruiting creators who will work for **performance upside only, with no guaranteed money, no exclusivity lock, and a recurring monthly posting commitment**. That is a very different profile from a paid-UGC creator. Prioritise accordingly: creators whose audience actually converts on food offers, who post frequently and consistently, who have a track record with codes/affiliate links, and whose follower base is genuinely Thai and in-market for KFC delivery. Raw reach is close to worthless here — a 2M-follower creator whose audience does not redeem is worse than a 50k creator whose audience does. Weight conversion signals and posting cadence above follower count, and say so in your scoring. CURRENT ROSTER — exclude all six from your results, they are already on the program: nong_eats (TikTok 412k, ER 6.1), beam.plays (YouTube 640k, ER 3.1), fern.fit.th (Instagram 310k, ER 5.6), pimpim.kitchen (Instagram 188k, ER 4.4), kwan.daily (Instagram 95k, ER 7.9), ploy.makes (TikTok 38.4k, ER 7.2). Also exclude creators already engaged on the sibling KFC campaigns to avoid cross-campaign collision: mook.mukbang, ohm.streetfood, jjay_allday, sarayut_bunpakhom, domonreview, evejirayu, bkk.nightowl, mawin_twp, tar_review. BRAND SAFETY — read `/mnt/memory/brand-rules/kfc-th/` (brand-rules.md, do-not.md, tone.md) BEFORE scoring, and screen against the do-not list. Specific disqualifiers worth checking for on this brand: alcohol content, competitor QSR partnerships (McDonald's TH, Burger King TH, Texas Chicken, Bonchon, Five Star, Zhengxin), "spicy challenge"/pain-reaction or speed-eating formats (explicitly banned for KFC TH — the Zinger is hot, it is not a stunt), health/diet claims framing, religious or royal imagery, and eating-while-driving/on-a-motorbike content. Note that one existing roster creator is a fitness creator, which makes the health-claim rule a recurring risk in this category — flag any prospect where that risk is elevated. Competitive context from `/mnt/memory/brand-health/kfc-th/latest-digest.md`: KFC holds 52% SOV; Bonchon (14%, rising) is expanding hard post-acquisition and increasing creator partnerships. Flag any prospect with recent or current Bonchon ties. WHAT TO DELIVER: - A ranked prospect list. For each: fit score, an explicit **confidence level**, and the evidence behind the score — do not give me a number without the reasoning. Where you are inferring rather than observing (e.g. estimating conversion propensity without redemption data), say so. - A recommended shortlist size, and a spread across TikTok / Instagram / YouTube with your reasoning about which platform earns its place in an in-app-code affiliate program in Thailand. - Explicitly call out any prospect you would NOT approach and why. - Save the list using your save tool. HARD CONSTRAINT: do NOT share anything with the client. That is a human gate and I have not authorised it. Save the list and report to me only. REPORT BACK TO ME: the ranked shortlist with scores, confidence and one-line evidence each; your platform-mix recommendation; any brand-safety exclusions; and an honest note on what data you could NOT get (particularly: if no redemption or affiliate-conversion history is available for these prospects, say so plainly rather than substituting reach as a proxy without flagging it).

Discovery complete for kfc-zinger-affiliate. Saved as prospect list `pl_ba736d1fbf174585` (14 ranked items). NOT sent to client — no send_prospect_list call made, per your hard constraint. **Method:** Searched the creator index (~2,900 Thai creators) with 3 query angles (TikTok food/mukbang, IG lifestyle/food-review, budget-eats/promo-code). Pulled full audience reports on 14 candidates. Excluded all 6 current roster creators and all 9 sibling-campaign creators as instructed. Read `/mnt/memory/brand-rules/kfc-th/` (do-not.md, brand-rules.md, tone.md) and `/mnt/memory/brand-health/kfc-th/latest-digest.md` before scoring. **Top 5 (of 10 ranked "approach" candidates + 4 flagged/excluded, 14 total saved):** 1. **@foodie.onduty** (TikTok, 21.6k) — 82/100, conf 0.6 — explicit Food&drink niche, 98% Thailand audience (best of any candidate), ER 4.66%, cadence 3.8 posts/wk. 2. **@indybuffet** (TikTok, 26.1k) — 79/100, conf 0.6 — explicit Food&drink, best TikTok audience-credibility score (0.386, i.e. least bot-suspect). 3. **@paikubmiew** (TikTok, 81.5k) — 77/100, conf 0.55 — best posting cadence of the pool (6.1/wk), content category not independently confirmed as food. 4. **@yimvanofficial** (TikTok, 657k) — 76/100, conf 0.5 — largest reach in the shortlist, strong audience signals (96% TH, credibility 0.365), but category unconfirmed — flagged for manual check before a code goes out given the size. 5. **@gindaieek.bkk** (Instagram, 277k) — 70/100, conf 0.55 — highest audience-credibility score of ANY candidate (0.812) and highest food-interest weighting (26.9%), but engagement rate is low (0.52%) — genuine audience, weak engagement, worth watching in month 1. **Full ranked order also includes** (with scores): @tongngng 68, @reviewnewthing 63, @nutcheckpro 55 (flagged — 16.6% Brazil audience share, implausible for a Thai account), @promotiontheeshop 52 (1.7M followers but only 1.72% ER — the exact reach-without-conversion pattern you told me to weight against; included only as a cautious trial), @hungrybearrr 50 (lowest TikTok food-niche credibility score, unusual audience skew). **Explicitly NOT recommended:** - **Golfy_Pleunpung** (TikTok, 474k) — lowest audience-credibility score of the entire pool (0.115), an implausible India/Iraq audience mix for an organic Thai account, and a buffet/large-quantity-eating content format that sits adjacent to the do-not-list's ban on quantity/speed-eating framing. Do not approach. - **3 YouTube candidates** (chonstyly, fai_kiki, painai.deewa) — `creator_report` returned `audience: null, safety: null` for all three; I have zero verification of Thailand share, age fit, or safety for any YouTube prospect this round. Scored 26-30 to reflect the data gap, not a known problem. **Platform-mix recommendation:** Weight new outreach toward **TikTok** (4-6 of the shortlist) — cadence naturally clears the ≥2 posts/month bar, food/deals content is native to the platform culture, and every strong pick clears 90%+ Thailand concentration. Give **Instagram** a smaller supporting role (gindaieek.bkk is the one worth it, on audience-quality grounds, not engagement). Hold **YouTube** entirely this round — no usable audience data, don't commit a code there without a direct platform-level audience pull first. Suggested shortlist size for this expansion round: **8** (top 5 above + 3 of the mid-tier TikTok/IG picks), leaving nutcheckpro/promotiontheeshop/hungrybearrr as a reserve bench, not a first wave. **What I could NOT verify (say so plainly, as instructed):** - **No redemption or affiliate-conversion history exists for any candidate.** `creator_search` and `creator_report` expose no conversion/redemption field at all — I built every score from audience-credibility, Thailand%, age fit, engagement rate and posting cadence as *proxies* for conversion propensity, not observed performance. This is stated in every item's evidence/why, not just here. - **No brand-affinity/competitor-tie data was returned by `creator_report`** for any candidate, despite the tool description implying it exists. I cannot programmatically confirm or rule out Bonchon ties for anyone on this list, even though the brand-health digest specifically flags Bonchon's expanding creator-partnership activity. Recommend a manual recent-post check before contracting, especially the top 5. - Content category (food-relevance) is unconfirmed by index metadata for 3 of the top 5 (paikubmiew, yimvanofficial, tongngng) — flagged individually with reduced confidence. Saved full reasoning to `/mnt/memory/campaign-memory/kfc-zinger-affiliate/plan.md` for the next session. Let me know if you want me to widen the search further (e.g. explicitly hunt for YouTube creators with pullable audience reports) or narrow to a specific platform.

Campaign: `kfc-zinger-affiliate` (brand `kfc-th`, KFC Thailand, market TH, currency THB). CONTEXT YOU NEED (you cannot see my history): This is an always-on AFFILIATE campaign. Brief: "each creator gets a personal Zinger code (THB 20 off in-app). Commission 8% of attributed order value. Content is theirs; disclosure is mandatory." Flight 2026-10-01 → 2026-12-31. Six creators: nong_eats (TikTok, 412k, ER 6.1), beam.plays (YouTube, 640k, ER 3.1), fern.fit.th (Instagram, 310k, ER 5.6), pimpim.kitchen (Instagram, 188k, ER 4.4), kwan.daily (Instagram, 95k, ER 7.9), ploy.makes (TikTok, 38.4k, ER 7.2). IMPORTANT STARTING FACT — do not waste time rediscovering it: I have already verified that `get_content_metrics("kfc-zinger-affiliate")` returns `[]`. There is NO content registered on this campaign at all. Do not report "no data" and stop. Instead, call `get_content_metrics("all")` and work from the sibling KFC Thailand campaign `kfc-zinger-ugc`, which has three PUBLISHED items with real metrics and 21-point retention curves: - `ct_mook_launch` (mook.mukbang, TikTok, 34s, "Zinger Double Down Dark — first bite at midnight"): 1.84M views, hook 78, hold 52 - `ct_jjay_teaser` (jjay_allday, TikTok, 22s, "No bun. Two Zingers. Trust me."): 620k views, hook 71, hold 44 - `ct_ohm_street` (ohm.streetfood, TikTok, 41s, "Street food guy tries the Double Down Dark"): 410k views, hook 58, hold 31 (Three further kfc-zinger-ugc items are unpublished drafts with all-zero metrics — ignore them, they carry no signal.) There are also non-KFC campaigns in that response (nike-q4-holiday, loreal-*). You may use them ONLY as cross-category comparison for what a strong hook/hold looks like; label any such use clearly as cross-brand, and never present a L'Oréal or Nike number as a KFC finding. WHAT TO PRODUCE: 1. What separates the top performer from the weakest — read the actual retention curves, not just the headline hook/hold numbers. Identify where in the curve each video loses people and what that implies about structure (opening framing, duration, payoff placement). 2. The relationship between duration and hold across these three (34s/52, 22s/44, 41s/31) — state plainly whether three data points can support a duration conclusion, and how confident you are. Do not over-claim from n=3. 3. Translate the findings into a concrete, creator-facing brief for AFFILIATE content. This is the real deliverable. Affiliate content differs from the UGC campaign: the creator owns the content, it must drive CODE REDEMPTION rather than just views, and it recurs (≥2 posts/month, always-on) rather than being a one-off launch asset. Say what a hook should do in the first 3 seconds, where the code mention should sit in the runtime and why (use the retention curves to argue the placement), and what makes a repeatable format that does not fatigue over a 3-month always-on flight. 4. Note explicitly which of your recommendations are transferred from TikTok data but would be applied to Instagram or YouTube creators (3 of our 6 are Instagram, 1 is YouTube, and ALL the source data is TikTok). Flag that transfer as an assumption, not a finding. CONSTRAINTS: - Read the brand rules first: /mnt/memory/brand-rules/kfc-th/ (brand-rules.md, do-not.md, tone.md) and /mnt/memory/brand-rules/platform/. Any format you recommend must be consistent with them. Two that bite hardest here: disclosure must be BOTH the platform paid-partnership label AND #ad/#โฆษณา in the first line of the caption; and there is no "spicy challenge"/pain-reaction framing allowed. - Do NOT recommend stating a specific discount value. The consumer offer value per code is currently unconfirmed and under review by a human. - Distinguish evidence from inference throughout. Give numbers with their source. Where you are unsure, say how unsure. WRITE YOUR OUTPUT TO: `/mnt/memory/campaign-memory/kfc-zinger-affiliate/insights.md` (create it; keep under 100 KiB; this is a network-backed FUSE mount, ~100-200ms per op, so compose locally in /tmp and write once). REPORT BACK TO ME: a compact summary — the 3-5 findings that would change what a producer does, each with its supporting number and your confidence level; the recommended affiliate content format; and anything you found that a human needs to decide. Flag clearly that all source data is from a different (UGC) campaign on the same brand.

Done. Wrote `/mnt/memory/campaign-memory/kfc-zinger-affiliate/insights.md` (creator-facing brief + full analysis) and mirrored `insights.json`/`insights.md` to `/mnt/session/outputs/`. **Source-data flag (repeating clearly, as instructed):** `kfc-zinger-affiliate` has zero registered content — `get_content_metrics` returns `[]`. Everything below is derived from the sibling `kfc-zinger-ugc` campaign (3 published TikTok items, all `provenance: seed`/demo). No affiliate performance data exists to report. I also confirmed there is no Cultural Intelligence trends tool in my toolset this session — I used `/mnt/memory/brand-health/kfc-th/` only for one competitive-context note (Bonchon accelerating creator partnerships), not as a category-trends feed. **Top findings (producer-actionable), each with number + confidence:** 1. **The top/bottom gap is set in the opening seconds, not the middle.** Mid-video attrition (hook checkpoint→50%-runtime midpoint) is nearly identical across all three videos regardless of quality: Mook -26pts, Jjay -27pts, Ohm -27pts. The variance is entirely in the opening loss: Mook -22pts, Jjay -29pts, Ohm -42pts (nearly double). Confidence: medium-high on the arithmetic (exact, verified independently this session); medium-low on *why* (title-specificity hypothesis — inferred from titles only, n=3, no transcript review). 2. **Duration does not predict hold — do not set a runtime rule from this data.** 22s→hold 44, 34s→hold 52, 41s→hold 31: non-monotonic. Confidence: low, stated deliberately as a non-finding (n=3). 3. **Retention curves are mostly a formula, not observed behavior.** Verified the 21-point curves are linear interpolation between exactly two real checkpoints (hook ~15% of runtime, hold at 50%) down to a fixed ~2% floor — reproduced exactly for all 3 items. Only hook and hold are evidence-grade; this matches an independent finding already on record in `kfc-midnight-live/insights.md` from the same 3 videos. Confidence: high. 4. **Save/share rate (stronger than likes) confirms the same ranking** as hook/hold: Mook 2.24%/1.51%, Jjay 2.00%/1.60%, Ohm 1.24%/0.83%. Confidence: medium (n=3, consistent, no contradicting case incl. one labelled cross-brand check). 5. **Code-placement inference (this is the real affiliate deliverable, and the weakest-evidence one):** place the code call-out at ~20-40% of runtime — after the opening claim/payoff, before the 50% mark where a third-to-nearly-half of the hooked audience is already gone — then reinforce in caption/pinned comment/bio. Confidence: low-medium, flagged explicitly as inference — none of the 3 source videos contain a code mechanic at all; this borrows a code-free retention pattern and applies it to a code-driven format. Should be re-tested against real affiliate posts once they exist. **Recommended affiliate format:** rotate 2-3 light templates ("the moment," "the order," "reaction/answer to a comment") that keep opening specificity fresh without a new concept each time; keep the code-placement window and mechanics constant across all three so audiences learn the pattern; ≥2 posts/month per mandate. No discount value stated anywhere (per your constraint — offer value unconfirmed/under review). Full compliance guardrails (doubled disclosure, no bun shown, no health claims — flagged specifically live-risk for fern.fit.th, no spicy-challenge framing, no competitor packaging, etc.) are in the brief, pulled from brand-rules.md/do-not.md/platform rules. **Platform-transfer assumption flagged explicitly:** all evidence is TikTok. Applying the timing logic to the 3 Instagram creators is a reasonable-but-unverified same-format assumption. Applying it to beam.plays (YouTube) is higher-risk — if she posts long-form video rather than Shorts, the whole percentage-of-runtime logic doesn't transfer and there's no long-form retention data anywhere in this dataset to build from instead. **For a human:** (1) once affiliate content starts getting registered, re-run this analysis on real affiliate posts, especially to check whether a code call-out itself hurts hook/hold — currently unknowable; (2) confirm beam.plays' actual format (Shorts vs. long-form) before the timing guidance is applied to her account. These are new items — I did not duplicate plan.md's GATE 0/1/2, which still stand as the higher-priority open items on this campaign.