# Post Shapes

Five structures, each with the hook already doing its job. They are scaffolding, not
templates to fill and ship — the specific detail is the post, and it has to be yours.

Every one of these assumes: a sentence completes inside the first ~140 characters, links go
in the first comment, no Unicode pseudo-bold, and a real question at the end.

---

## 1. The measurement that changed our mind

Best for: `trust`, `authority`. Format: text post or carousel.

```
[The number nobody believed.]
[The instinct everyone had, named fairly.]

What we actually measured:
[The two figures that reframed it.]

[What we changed - three items, each with a consequence.]

The part I got wrong:
[The thing you spent time on before measuring.]

[A question aimed at someone facing the same measurement.]
```

Why it works: the hook is a number and a reversal. The "part I got wrong" is a costly
signal — admitting error is expensive, which is why it reads as true.

---

## 2. The decision, with the cost attached

Best for: `thought-leadership`. Format: text post.

```
[We stopped doing X.] [The consequence, quantified.]

The argument for keeping it was [the strongest version of the other side].
It was a real argument. Here is why it lost:

[Two or three sentences of actual reasoning.]

What it cost us: [the real downside, named].

[The question: where does this break for you?]
```

Why it works: steelmanning the other side before disagreeing is the rarest move in a
professional feed, and the "what it cost" line inoculates against the obvious objection.

---

## 3. The teardown

Best for: `authority`, `consulting`. Format: carousel or long text post.

```
[One named artifact - with permission, or anonymised.]
[What it gets right, in one sentence. Say this first and mean it.]

Three things I would change:

1. [Change] - because [mechanism, not preference]
2. [Change] - because [mechanism]
3. [Change] - because [mechanism]

The one I am least sure about: [the honest uncertainty].

[Question to the person who has done this differently.]
```

Why it works: specificity plus a stated uncertainty. The uncertainty is what invites the
comment worth having.

---

## 4. The field note

Best for: any pillar, and the format that keeps a cadence alive in a bad week. Format: text
post, ~500-900 characters.

```
[What you did this week, concretely.]

[The thing that surprised you.]

[What you will do differently next week because of it.]

[Optional: a question only someone doing the same work could answer.]
```

Why it works: it costs 15 minutes, it is impossible to fake, and it is the format that
compounds because you can always write one.

---

## 5. The transition post

Best for: `career-change`. Format: text post.

```
[The specific thing you did in the new field this month.]
[Not "I am excited to announce" - the thing itself.]

What I brought from [old field] that turned out to matter:
[One transferable capability, evidenced.]

What I had to learn from zero:
[One honest gap, named without apology.]

[Where you are heading, stated as a direction rather than a request.]

[A question for people already doing the thing.]
```

Why it works: it demonstrates the transition rather than announcing it. Announcements ask
for permission; evidence does not. See `linkedin-strategy/references/objective_to_pillars.md`
on why career-change posts should be aimed at the target field, not at current colleagues.

---

## Openers to delete on sight

"I'm excited to announce" · "I'm thrilled" · "I'm humbled" · "In today's fast-paced world" ·
"Quick thought:" · any first eight words that would fit any post about anything.

## Closers that are engagement bait, not questions

"Thoughts?" · "Agree?" · "Comment X below and I'll send you the guide" · "Like if you agree" ·
"Tag someone who needs this". `post_linter.py` treats these as blocking.
