[PRE-AUTHORED FIXTURE — represents the local rehydration step: the two
mock answers combined with the local-only context. No provider saw this document.]

Quietloom launch plan (rehydrated locally):

Positioning (from provider A's framing + local specifics):
- First-screen line: "Pasting your unlaunched idea into an AI chatbox is a
  disclosure. Quietloom splits the paste so it isn't."
- The loom-split mechanism stays undisclosed until the provisional filing
  is drafted (founder note honored — that constraint never left this
  machine).
- Trust strategy per A: every claim verifiable from the repo — which is
  exactly the moat: competitors redact, Quietloom leaves a signed receipt.

README skeleton (from provider B's structure + local specifics):
1. "Pasting into an AI chatbox is a disclosure." (headline pattern applied)
2. How it works: skeleton out / remainder local / receipt signed.
3. Quick start: free local tool, no signup — matches the pricing plan
   (free core; USD 9/seat team policy pack; USD 490/yr founder bundle
   introduced only at the paid-pack section, last).
4. Verifiable claim in 60 seconds: tamper a receipt, watch verify fail.
5. Not-claims section above features, per B.

GTM sequencing (A's 90-day arc mapped to the local plan):
- Weeks 1-2: quiet GitHub launch; seed the IndieHackers
  "building in public (quietly)" thread — the exact first-100-users channel
  stays local; providers only saw "niche community".
- Weeks 3-6: same-day issue responses + "how verification works" post.
- Weeks 7-12: one integration guide targeting pre-launch indie SaaS
  founders in competitive niches (target market detail reintroduced here).

What each provider actually saw: a generic positioning question (A) and a
README structure task (B). Neither saw the name, the mechanism, the pricing,
the channel, or the filing constraint.
