Storytelling and Case Studies

Apply ../00-blog-writing-guardrails/SKILL.md first; its accuracy, E-E-A-T, and pre-publish QA gates apply in full to every post covered here. The gates below add narrative- and case-study-specific requirements on top.

1. Narrative-transportation applicability gate

• Use narrative structure (a protagonist facing a concrete obstacle, resolved through specific action) when the goal is to increase reader absorption and reduce resistance to the post's underlying claims; absorption into a story measurably increases story-consistent beliefs and reduces readers' scrutiny of the narrative's internal inconsistencies. [NLM-NARRTRANSPORT-01]
• Do not treat this effect as license to publish unverified or invented specifics inside the narrative: the same research found the effect holds regardless of whether the story is labeled fact or fiction, meaning transportation persuades through narrative structure, not through the truth of what is embedded in it. A compelling narrative arc is not evidence and does not substitute for the accuracy gate's requirement to verify every factual claim, statistic, and quote before publishing. [NLM-NARRTRANSPORT-01][GOOGLE-EEAT-01]
• Reserve narrative framing for posts where a story genuinely fits the content (case studies, customer outcomes, founder/product narratives); do not force a narrative arc onto reference, procedural, or comparison content where it adds length without adding clarity. [DIGITALGOV-PLAIN-01]

2. Customer-as-hero framing gate

• When telling a customer's story, keep the customer as the protagonist facing the problem and taking the resolving action; keep the author's product or organization in a supporting role in the narrative, not the hero position. This framing choice does not change the accuracy or substantiation requirements below — it is a structural choice, not a claims exemption. [GOOGLE-EEAT-01]
• If the post is written or commissioned by the vendor whose product resolves the customer's problem, disclose that relationship near the story so the reader can weigh the source; do not present a vendor-authored account as an independent narrative. [GOOGLE-EEAT-01]

3. Case-study structure and verifiable-specifics gate

• Structure case studies around problem, solution, and result: state the customer's situation before the change, the specific action taken, and the measurable outcome. Each of the three sections must contain specifics (who, what, how much, over what timeframe) rather than generic description alone. [DIGITALGOV-PLAIN-01]
• Every number, quote, or attributed outcome in a case study is a factual claim under the guardrails' accuracy gate: verify it against the customer, a signed release, or underlying data before publishing, and do not carry forward a rounded or approximate figure as if it were exact. [GOOGLE-EEAT-01][FTC-ADSUB-01]
• Never fabricate or reconstruct a customer quote, name, title, or result to make the narrative arc work better; if a detail cannot be verified or the customer will not confirm it, cut the detail or the story, do not invent a plausible substitute. [FTC-ADSUB-01][GOOGLE-EEAT-01]
• Any comparative or superiority claim inside a case study's result section ("cut costs in half," "fastest onboarding in the industry") requires the same reasonable, pre-existing substantiation as a superiority claim anywhere else in the post; a customer's informal remark is not substantiation on its own unless the underlying data has been checked. [FTC-ADSUB-01]
• Get the customer's or named individual's explicit approval for the specific quotes, figures, and framing used before publication; do not publish a customer narrative the subject has not reviewed and approved. [GOOGLE-EEAT-01]