Pre-Build Spec — MKT 6080 Module 6

Status: Approved — built and confirmed 2026-04-30 Generated by: Nexus Approved by: Fadl Altarzi — 2026-04-30 Build version: v1.0 (deployed) Date generated: 2026-04-30

This SPEC was generated and approved through a verbal PRD interview session. All 10 points below reflect the confirmed build state.

---

1. Assessment Identity

• Course: MKT 6080 — Marketing Strategy
• Module: 6 — Creating a Winning Marketing Team
• Company: Procter & Gamble (PG) — Consumer Goods, NYSE
• Version string: v1.0
• Route: /assessments/mkt6080/module-6
• Program / degree level: MBA (Masters)

---

2. Step Structure

#	Step ID	Label	Type	Lock dependency	showScenario
1	scenario	Company Profile	Read-only overview	None	no
2	team-analysis	Stage 1 — Team	MCQ (3 questions)	Step 1 complete	yes
3	vendor-review	Stage 2 — Vendor	Document mockup + MCQ (3 questions)	Step 2 complete	yes
4	analyst-qa	Analyst QA	SpotTheError + free text	Step 3 complete	no
5	cmo-memo	Stage 3 — CMO Brief	Written brief	Step 4 complete	yes

---

3. MCQ Inventory

Step 2 — Team Analysis

• Questions: 3
• Category labels:
  • "Team Performance — Root Cause"
  • "7Ps Framework — Gap Identification"
  • "Technology Strategy — AI Brief Tool Readiness"
• MLO targets: Module 6 MLO-1 (Apply leadership and management principles to a real organizational scenario), MLO-2 (Evaluate the effectiveness of different leadership/team management approaches)
• CLO target: CLO-6

Step 3 — Vendor Review

• Questions: 3
• Category labels:
  • "Vendor Performance — Measurement Reliability"
  • "Vendor Management — Process Step"
  • "7Ps Framework — CPM Interpretation"
• MLO targets: Module 6 MLO-3 (Develop a practical plan to address the leadership/organizational challenge)
• CLO target: CLO-6

---

4. AI Question

• Step: Step 2 (team-analysis), question 3
• Category label: "Technology Strategy — AI Brief Tool Readiness"
• Badge color: cyan
• Question angle: Evaluates whether P&G's AI-powered brief generation tool can be deployed on the current brief library — the correct prerequisite is establishing a shared brief taxonomy before training the model, not acquiring more training examples or regulatory clearance.
• Why appropriate: Marketing technology readiness is a core contemporary application of marketing leadership (CLO-6 connects directly to how marketing teams adopt and align around AI tools). The question tests applied judgment about technology prerequisites rather than AI knowledge recall.
• LD approval status: Approved — confirmed by LXD during PRD interview 2026-04-30

---

5. Media Elements

• ScenarioOverview chart: LineChart showing MediaEdge KPI delivery rate across Q1–Q4 FY2024 (88% → 64%) with a 95% SLA reference line — illustrates the three-quarter underperformance pattern
• SpotTheError: LineChart (ROAS by channel: Paid Social, Display, Paid Search, 6 months) — deliberate flaw: Y-axis truncated at 1.5× (not 0×), making 0.2–0.5× variation appear dramatic; chart title "Strong Recovery Across All Channels" is also misleading as all channels remain below the 3.0× ROAS target
• Analyst QA context: "Junior Performance Analyst at MediaEdge prepared this ROAS chart for P&G's CMO ahead of the Q4 FY2024 agency review"
• Vendor brief document mockup: Five-section accordion document (Agency overview, Campaign performance summary, KPI delivery analysis, Contract terms, MediaEdge Q3 response) — used in Step 3 alongside the 3 vendor MCQ questions
• ScenarioOverview variant: A (ticker pill — no P&G logo file in public/logos/)
• Session-seeded data: ROAS chart values seeded across 3 variants (±0.1× per channel) — Layer 2 AI-resistance compliance

---

6. Industry Context Panel

Four items in 2×2 grid, positioned after performance metrics table and before Recharts chart in ScenarioOverview.

#	Label	Rationale
1	Retail Media Fragmentation	Premium skincare budgets now span 6+ retail media networks with incompatible attribution models, increasing coordination cost and KPI misalignment risk
2	AI-Powered Campaign Personalization	L'Oréal and Beiersdorf deploying GenAI to reduce production from 6 weeks to 10 days — brands without shared brief taxonomies cannot feed these tools
3	Agency Consolidation Pressure	Top FMCG companies cut rosters 34% (2022–2024), replacing rather than renegotiating with agencies missing KPIs for 2+ consecutive cycles
4	Premium Trade-Up Reversal	Cost-of-living pressure driving spend from broad awareness to precision high-intent targeting, rewarding strong lower-funnel agency execution

---

7. Written Brief

• Step label: Stage 3 — CMO Brief
• Required frameworks (from PRD): 7Ps marketing mix; 6-step vendor management process
• Prompt text (dynamic base): "In Stage 1 you identified [TP2_LABEL from learner's tp2 answer] as the primary gap in P&G's marketing execution. Based on your analysis across all stages, you must now recommend ONE of the following actions: Retain MediaEdge under a formal remediation plan, or Replace MediaEdge with a new agency partner. P&G's European marketing budget for the next quarter is fixed at £2.4M — only ONE vendor action can be funded."
• Dynamic injection: Learner's Step 2 tp2 answer (which 7Ps element they identified as the process gap) is injected into the written brief prompt at render time. The TP2_LABELS map converts the MCQ answer ID to the full 7P label name.
• Hard constraint: "Only ONE vendor action may be funded this quarter — you cannot recommend both a remediation plan and a transition. Choose one and argue against the other by name."
• Named alternative: Whichever option the learner did not choose (retain or replace) is referenced explicitly in the grading prompt as the alternative that must be argued against.
• Required framework prompt fragment: "Your brief must apply the 7Ps framework and the 6-step vendor management process covered in Module 6. Reference both frameworks explicitly."
• Minimum word count: 80
• MLO targets: Module 6 MLO-1, MLO-2, MLO-3 (all three — the brief integrates leadership diagnosis, approach evaluation, and practical plan)
• CLO targets: CLO-6
• Grading section ID: cmo-memo
• Grading section label: "CMO Strategic Brief"

MLO-first rule: Written brief framing is grounded in Module 6 MLOs (Apply leadership principles, Evaluate management approaches, Develop a practical plan) before CLO-6. The brief prompt explicitly requires framework application (7Ps + vendor management process) which operationalizes all three MLOs in an applied marketing leadership context.

AI-resistance check: Layer 1 (dynamic injection of tp2 answer) ✓ · Layer 2 (seeded ROAS chart data) ✓ · Layer 3 (SpotTheError chart in analyst-qa step; vendor brief document in vendor-review step) ✓ · Layer 4 (single recommendation, named alternative, £2.4M hard constraint) ✓ · Layer 5 (7Ps and 6-step vendor management process named in prompt; Domain descriptor tests correct application in framework terminology) ✓

---

8. Company Profile

• Name: Procter & Gamble
• Ticker: PG
• Sector: Consumer Goods — Premium Skincare
• Exchange: NYSE
• Description (as rendered in UI): "P&G's European Premium Skincare division (London HQ, €280M annual revenue) manages four heritage brands across 18 European markets. The division operates a hub-and-spoke model: a central Brand team in London sets strategy and tone; Digital and Performance Marketing teams execute paid media, content, and e-commerce activation across market clusters. Two operational problems are pressuring Q1 performance targets: process failures between Brand and Digital functions have extended brief approval cycles to 18 days against a 10-day target, generating 7 inter-team brief conflicts per quarter; and the primary external media agency, MediaEdge, is delivering 64% of contracted KPIs against a 95% service level target, with ROAS declining to 1.8× against a 3.0× benchmark and CPM rising 50% in eight months."
• Source: docs/simulation-data/global_simulation_company_database.json (C0106)
• Scenario adjustments: European Premium Skincare division added as fictional sub-unit; all performance metrics (ROAS, CPM, KPI delivery rate, brief cycle time) are plausible fiction. MediaEdge is a fictional agency name. No real P&G data used.

---

9. Grading Configuration

• MCQ weight: 0.60
• Written weight: 0.40
• Degree level: Masters
• Mastery threshold: ≥90%
• Developing threshold: ≥80% (Masters)
• CLO demonstrated threshold: ≥80% (Masters)
• Pillar weights: Domain 55%, Reasoning 25%, Contribution 20%
• MLO → CLO → pillar mapping:
  • Module 6 MLO-1 (Apply leadership/management principles) → CLO-6 → Domain
  • Module 6 MLO-2 (Evaluate management approaches) → CLO-6 → Domain + Reasoning
  • Module 6 MLO-3 (Develop a practical plan) → CLO-6 → Domain + Contribution

Rubric descriptors (generated by Nexus — approved by LXD 2026-04-30):

Domain descriptor rule applied: Meets Expectations band names both required frameworks (7Ps and 6-step vendor management process) with framework-specific terminology (Process element, Step 4 compliance notice, Promotion/CPM dimension).

Cumulative module note: This is Module 6 (is_cumulative = true) but was scoped as a single-module assessment, not a full-course cumulative. Rubric descriptors reference Module 6 MLOs; all six modules' content is background context.

• Domain — Meets (90–100%): Applies the 7Ps framework with precision — correctly identifies Process as the internal brief-workflow gap, Promotion as the CPM/ROAS efficiency dimension, and maps both findings to specific evidence from the scenario (18-day cycle, 36 of 56 KPIs undelivered, £42 CPM). Applies the 6-step vendor management process accurately, correctly placing a formal compliance notice at Step 4 before escalation to termination. CMO brief identifies the correct 7Ps gap, names the alternative recommendation explicitly, and defends the position with scenario-specific data. Framework terminology from both 7Ps and the vendor management process appears in the response.
• Domain — Mostly Meets (80–89%): 7Ps application mostly accurate — Process gap and Promotion CPM dimension identified, but one framework term applied loosely or without scenario evidence. Vendor management step sequencing correct but the distinction between Step 4 (compliance notice) and Step 6 (termination) asserted rather than explained. CMO brief addresses the correct 7Ps finding and includes a recommendation, but the argument against the named alternative relies on assertion rather than scenario data.
• Domain — Somewhat Meets (70–79%): 7Ps framework present but applied generically — Process identified but described in non-framework language. Vendor management process referenced but step-level sequencing incorrect. CMO brief makes a recommendation but does not apply the vendor management process framework or uses framework terms incorrectly. Scenario data cited is incomplete or inaccurate.
• Domain — Does Not Meet (<70%): 7Ps framework absent or applied to wrong dimensions. Vendor management process step not identified or termination recommended before compliance notice. CMO brief lacks framework reference and does not engage with specific scenario data. No named alternative addressed.
• Reasoning — Meets (90–100%): Causal chain is explicit and grounded — explains why misaligned taxonomies generate rework at handoffs; why a compliance notice must precede termination (evidential and contractual logic); why training on taxonomically contradictory data encodes rather than resolves conflicts. CMO brief recommendation follows directly from earlier analysis with a logical if-then structure.
• Reasoning — Mostly Meets (80–89%): Reasoning sound but one causal link asserted rather than explained. CMO brief recommendation consistent with earlier MCQ analysis but counter-argument is weak.
• Reasoning — Somewhat Meets (70–79%): Analysis identifies correct answers but reasoning is post-hoc description rather than explanation. CMO brief recommendation stated but not argued.
• Reasoning — Does Not Meet (<70%): No causal reasoning — responses are restatements of scenario facts. CMO brief contains no argument structure.
• Contribution — Meets (90–100%): Identifies a second-order consequence beyond the prompt's explicit framing — e.g., explains that deploying the AI brief tool before taxonomic alignment would accelerate the conflict at scale; or articulates that CPM increase compounds ROAS underperformance. CMO brief advances a non-obvious argument for why the chosen vendor action is preferable under the specific budget constraint.
• Contribution — Mostly Meets (80–89%): Analysis goes slightly beyond restating the scenario — one observation not derivable directly from the question text. CMO brief recommendation argued but the £2.4M constraint acknowledged without being integrated.
• Contribution — Somewhat Meets (70–79%): Responses largely restate the question stem. CMO brief adds a preference without analytical synthesis.
• Contribution — Does Not Meet (<70%): No analytical contribution — generic marketing principles with no application to the specific P&G situation.

---

10. Sources Declared

Source ID	Title	Used for
C0106	Procter & Gamble (global_simulation_company_database.json)	Company identity, sector, scenario family
WHITELIST GAP	7Ps marketing framework (McCarthy / Booms & Bitner)	MCQ framing, rubric descriptors, written brief — no registry entry found for 7Ps
WHITELIST GAP	6-step vendor management process	MCQ framing, rubric descriptors, written brief — no registry entry found for vendor management process
WHITELIST GAP	Last-click attribution methodology	SpotTheError chart flaw explanation, vr1 explanation — no registry entry found

Whitelist gaps identified (topics with no matching registry entry — LD team to action):

• 7Ps marketing framework (McCarthy 1960 / Booms & Bitner 1981 service extension)
• Vendor/agency management process (step-by-step framework)
• Last-click vs multi-touch attribution models in digital marketing

---

11. Compliance Checklist

Design & process

• PRD completed and confirmed via verbal interview — Zone 1 inputs recorded in PRD.md
• PRD.md and SPEC.md committed alongside assessment code
• Rubric descriptors generated by Nexus and approved by LXD (§9)

Structure & navigation

• Step locking (isAccessible pattern with QA bypass ?qa=nxf-qa-8f2k)
• ← Back button on every step except Step 1
• Standard button vocabulary (Continue →, Submit for Grading → etc.)
• In-session answer persistence — session state + change callbacks on all MCQ and written components
• Content visibility — only active step rendered, no future step pre-rendering

Required components

• RubricPanel on Step 1 (default closed) + showRubric sidebar pattern on Steps 2+
• AI question included and LD-approved (Step 2, tp3 — AI brief tool readiness)
• Recharts chart in ScenarioOverview (ResponsiveContainer) — KPI delivery trend LineChart
• Industry context panel (4 items, present-tense) in ScenarioOverview
• SpotTheError component with amber header and 20-word minimum
• Analyst QA step between final MCQ step (vendor-review) and written brief (cmo-memo)
• Analyst QA response wired to grading API as written section (sectionId: "analyst-qa")
• GradingErrorBanner with gradeErrorCode state (GRD-001 / GRD-002 / GRD-003)

Grading & retake

• MCQ weight 0.60 and written weight 0.40 match PRD-confirmed values
• Retake policy wired — handleRetry + onRetry on GradeReport
• Rolling-window cooldown (4 in 1h) and already-passed gate in grading API

Branding & copy

• Ticker pill in page header h1 (Variant A — no P&G logo file)
• Assessment header permanently dark (bg-slate-900) — never light or adaptive
• nxf-indigo CTAs (not emerald); nxf-yellow completed step circles (not emerald)
• US English spelling throughout
• Warm learner-facing tone (no "✗ Incorrect", no cold retry messages)
• Version string in breadcrumb line (monospace, v1.0)
• LAST_UPDATED constant set to 2026-04-30
• No external logos (no Clearbit, no nexford.edu URLs)
• WCAG 2.1 AA ✓ (aria-labels, aria-live regions, aria-pressed on MCQ buttons, aria-expanded on vendor brief accordion, aria-describedby on textareas)

AI-resistance (all 5 layers)

• Layer 1 — Dynamic brief injection: CMO memo prompt references learner's tp2 MCQ answer label (Process/Price/Product/Promotion) injected at render time
• Layer 2 — Seeded data variant: SpotTheError ROAS chart values seeded from 3 variants (±0.1× per channel) via Math.floor(Math.random() * 3) session seed
• Layer 3 — Visual dependency: SpotTheError question requires interpreting the specific chart; vendor brief document must be read to answer vr1–vr3
• Layer 4 — Forced position: single recommendation (retain or replace), named alternative, hard constraint (£2.4M / one vendor action) in CMO memo
• Layer 5 — Course framework anchor: CMO memo names both required frameworks; Domain descriptor tests correct application in 7Ps and vendor management process terminology (§9)

Modality controls (AST-5 — text/data-only variant)

• AST-5 implemented as data interpretation + advisory (vendor scorecard, chart analysis, written brief) — no audio/video modalities required for this implementation