AI-Washing or Real Differentiation? Auditing a Positioning Statement
Objective: Given a draft AI feature positioning statement for a Robinhood market-insights feature, identify where it hides behind buzzwords instead of naming a real outcome, moat, or proof point.
You're a product marketer at Robinhood, reviewing a draft positioning statement for a new AI-powered market insights feature before it goes into the app's feature announcement and sales enablement deck.
Read the draft statement. Flag every line that's AI-washing (buzzwords standing in for a real claim) versus real differentiation grounded in outcome, moat, or evidence.
Before you start
What you'll need
Free path (everything below is enough to finish)
Free, comment threads double as the review record for the PMM lead
The process
Specimens to review
Which claims in this draft are AI-washing that could be cut with no loss of meaning, and which, if any, are real differentiation worth keeping?
ROBINHOOD MARKET INSIGHTS AI — DRAFT POSITIONING (internal) Headline: "Powered by cutting-edge generative AI, our revolutionary market insights engine leverages advanced machine learning to deliver next-generation intelligence." Sub-head: "Our AI is smarter than any other AI on the market, built on a proprietary neural architecture that outperforms the competition." Body: "Using state-of-the-art large language models, Market Insights AI analyzes vast amounts of data to surface highly accurate, real-time signals. Our AI-powered engine is trained on massive datasets and continuously learns to get even better. Investors who use Market Insights AI report feeling more confident in their decisions." CTA: "Experience the future of investing with AI."
Specimen: synthetic, realistic
Final deliverable
A commented copy of the draft with every AI-washing claim flagged and tagged critical, moderate, or cosmetic, plus a one-line rewrite direction for each.
See a reference example
Coinbase AI Fraud Alerts — Positioning Audit (excerpt)
CRITICAL: 'Powered by advanced AI' names no job. Rewrite direction: lead with the job ('catches suspicious sign-ins before they become account takeovers').
CRITICAL: 'Industry-leading accuracy' has no number. Rewrite direction: '99.2% precision on flagged sign-ins, validated across 2M logins in Q2 2026.'Success criteria
You're done when you can:
- Flags both critical defects (no named job, vague superlative) without prompting
- Distinguishes AI-washing from stylistic choices that aren't real defects
- Proposes a concrete rewrite direction for each flagged claim, not just a critique