Purpose, values and promises

Answered, 5 October: all three stated-strategy recommendations accepted. These describe what a company or product says about itself. The source page, guideline book or campaign piece remains separately identifiable.

The recorded decisions preserve your approval and its limits. No further answer is needed on these three choices. The examples and alternatives below remain the record of what you reviewed.

Choice	Accepted recommendation
Purpose, Mission and Vision	Keep the source's names searchable; do not force them into interchangeable or mandatory slots.
Values	Keep stated principles distinct from purpose statements and from observed behavior.
Brand Promise and Value Proposition	Keep distinct research meanings, while allowing supported overlap.

What is already settled

You already approved keeping a source's documented strategy separate from our interpretation. A studio's case study can explain the strategy behind work and connect to that work and its maker. Company and product positioning also remain separate. None of those capabilities needs another answer.

You also approved keeping calls to action, prices, benefits and terms searchable across media, while removing Offer as a whole-piece type. That decision stays settled. The promise and value-proposition choice below asks how to compare stated strategy; it does not ask whether someone can find an offer or its wording.

The older identity review said strategy describes the brand, not the piece. That was too broad. We need to distinguish what a statement describes from where we found it. A guideline page can document a company's promise; a case study can explain the strategy for a campaign. Neither relationship makes every sentence a verified fact or every campaign idea a permanent company attribute.

1. Preserve what the source calls its statement

Accepted recommendation: keep Purpose, Mission and Vision searchable under the names the source uses, with any interpretation shown separately. These often concern why an organization exists, what it sets out to do or the future it seeks. They do not have reliably exclusive meanings across every organization. A company need not supply all three.

Checked examples: Inter IKEA's culture and values page uses Vision to explain why IKEA exists and Business Idea to explain what it wants to achieve. Microsoft's Code Book introduces Mission through the same question of existence and also describes it as purpose. Renaming one source to make a tidy comparison would hide this difference.

Counterexample: if a source supplies only a mission, displaying it as “Mission and Vision” implies more than we have established. Conversely, two different source headings do not prove two different underlying ideas. Keep the actual statement and the source's heading together.

Alternative: normalize every statement into our own fixed Purpose, Mission or Vision definition, retaining its original heading only in details. That makes comparison simpler, but can force ambiguous statements into a distinction their author did not make. I recommend source names first. A supported interpretation can still help people compare statements about the same question, clearly identified as our interpretation.

What changes downstream: someone can find a company's stated mission and inspect its wording, source and date. Search across companies can distinguish an exact source term from a broader conceptual match. Missing statements remain unknown; a model should not invent the missing slots to complete a profile.

2. Values are stated principles, not proof of behavior

Accepted recommendation: keep Values as the principles a source says should guide decisions or conduct, distinct from its purpose statement. A source may express several values together; each can remain findable with its explanation and evidence.

Checked example: Microsoft's Code Book presents Respect, Integrity and Accountability as values in a separate section from its mission. It also separates culture and leadership material. That supports finding the principles themselves without turning every nearby heading into another value.

Counterexample: a brand saying it values sustainability does not establish that all its products are sustainable. A green palette does not establish that sustainability is a stated value. An analyst can discuss apparent behavior, but that interpretation must not replace the source's own claim.

Alternative: keep values only inside a general strategy description. That avoids another browsing distinction but makes questions such as “which companies state this principle, and how do they express it?” harder to answer reliably. I recommend the separate meaning, with the source's wording preserved.

What changes downstream: connect a principle to its supporting passage and the subject it describes. Link pieces as documented examples or as clearly identified analysis. A product does not automatically inherit every company value. Later revisions and human corrections must remain visible rather than being replaced by a fresh summary.

3. A promise and a reason to choose answer different questions

Accepted recommendation: keep Brand Promise for the commitment an organization says people can expect, and Value Proposition for the benefit or reason it offers someone to choose it or its product. These are useful research meanings, not mutually exclusive boxes. One supported statement can serve both purposes.

Checked example: Red Hat's brand-platform page names value proposition, brand position and brand promise separately. Its public explanation treats the promise as a commitment across interactions. The detailed value proposition is behind login, so this review does not reconstruct it. NC State's platform uses Brand Promise more broadly to explain its reason for being—a useful warning against automatic synonym rules.

Counterexample: a product feature is not automatically a value proposition; the benefit to a particular audience needs evidence. A catchy campaign line is not automatically a company-wide promise. Nor does a promise prove that the organization fulfils it.

Alternative: combine these under one benefit-and-promise description. That is compact, but mixes a commitment with a reason to choose. I recommend retaining both meanings and the original source term, marking interpretation when our comparison goes beyond the source's own description.

What changes downstream: allow research by company or product, audience and supported context without copying one universal promise across all of them. The relevant passage supports the relationship. Matching wording alone does not create campaign membership, product ownership or a competitor relationship.

What this review does not settle

These choices do not create new whole-piece content types or require a separate database table for each term. Positioning details, differentiation, competition views, audience definitions and the remaining identity elements stay open where not already decided. Exact descriptions and implementation for calls to action and offers still need checking. An answer here does not approve that entire list.

The selected system checks found existing strategy descriptions and local paths that need further verification. The evidence note records those limits and the implications for collection, prompts, publication, search and monitoring. No stored record has been relabeled and no pipeline has been activated.

Your reply accepts these three displayed recommendations. It does not approve the remaining strategy list or physical implementation.

Return to the morning review desk for the other independent packets.

Prepared 5 October 2026.

The review date below records a check of the current choices against the recorded answers and linked text examples. It does not certify the complete database or pipeline.

Last reviewed 5 October 2026.