Open your morning. Your portfolio is read, sorted, and triaged. Three flag for action. Two for monitoring. The rest are Tuesday.
Twenty-two brands this morning. Three need a response today, two need monitoring, the rest are Tuesday. The flag tier isn't where the bad scores live — it's where the score is doing something a brand's normal doesn't account for.
FSD regulator scrutiny escalated overnight. Material shift in EU exposure.
Critical day across three story arcs — vaccine policy, conflict of interest, RFK PAC.
Unwell Empire coverage gaining secondary frame. Watch trigger: any PR pushback.
Tuesday for Boeing. Defenders + detractors active. In-band, no escalation needed.
Berlin tournament window open. Amplify legacy moments on owned channels.
Below standing for the second day. Watch for FACTA settlement resurfacing.
Two brands. Identical score today. Opposite call.
Because the score alone doesn't tell you what to do — the score against this brand's normal does.
A score on its own is a number on a chart. A score against a brand's normal is a read — and the read is what tells you whether today calls for a draft or a hold. Boeing and Alex Cooper both sit at minus 2.4 today; only one of them is news.
Defenders and detractors both active. Score sits inside the band Boeing has lived in for 90 days. Nothing material has shifted.
Standing has hovered at zero for 90 days. Today's −2.4 is the lowest one-day read in the window — a real deviation, not a Tuesday.
Same coverage. Opposite call.
The standing is the difference.
Coverage doesn't just have a score — it has a shape.
We name ten. Each shape's dynamic may call for a different response.
The score tells you something moved. The shape tells you what kind of story you're in — and what to do about it. A polarized brand doesn't get the same response as a chronic one; an opportunity window doesn't get the same answer as a brewing crisis.
Defenders amplifying the FAA 777X certification win. Detractors amplifying 787 nose-gear collapse + 'Freefall' documentary. Two audiences, two stories, no overlap.
Prepare both camps separately. Not one statement that lands with neither.
Berlin tournament coverage building. Cross-cultural pickup expanding. Audience receptive to legacy-positioning content right now.
Amplify on owned channels by EOD. Window closes when the next news cycle starts.
Standing at −5.0 for 90 days. Today's −1.6 is actually above his typical band. No new framing. No volume surge. Sustained controversy is his baseline.
Hold position. Brace for the next inflection — not the current state.
Acute negative spike met with denial. SCCT prescribes deny only when external evidence is clean.
Coombs · SCCT · 2007
Multi-week creeping erosion in a single frame. Reframe once, don't respond incrementally.
Boin · creeping-crisis · 2020
Post-crisis reclaim. Resist re-litigating; stay the course on the new narrative.
Holt · cultural-branding · 2004
Suppression attempts amplify the story. Stop suppressing; pivot to a broader narrative.
Jansen & Martin · 2015
Entity is framed as victim of external event. Lean into the framing; don't volunteer responsibility.
Coombs · SCCT victim cluster · 2007
Strong-negative voice hardens without defender counterweight. ~2× word-of-mouth growth tax.
Reichheld · NPS · 2003 / 2021
Day-to-day instability in the opinion split. Hold positioning; resist reactive adjustments.
Garcia · sentiment divergence · 2025
Two more shapes in development. Each pack documents the headline frame, the prescribed move, and the research anchor.
Each shape — and the move that goes with it —
grounded in a hundred years of crisis-communications research.
Five specialists read the day package independently. When they don't agree, every voice is heard and weighed — the dissent considered alongside the rest. The final determination has been through them all.
Reuters investigation reframes Tesla from product-safety concerns to institutional bad faith. Regulatory deception is structurally more dangerous.
47 sources, 8 European outlets with first-hand reporting. Nordic regulators publicly questioning Tesla's data. Facts are well-established.
Defenders still active — FAA 777X cert, robotaxi pilots. But sentiment band has shifted polarized → skewed-negative for the first time in 30 days.
Most negative posts come from reputable PR-adjacent journalism, not viral retail rage. Lower amplification ceiling. Quieter, but not less material.
EU FSD approval delay is real cost. US-focused PR response will backfire in Europe. July + October EU committee sessions are hard deadlines.
You reported WARNING for this content. The other council members did NOT corroborate:
Re-examine your analysis carefully. Check for sarcasm or irony misread as genuine threat, misattribution of events to the wrong subject, overweighting a single source, recency bias. Confirm or revise.
I've reviewed the council's reads. The four Threat / Critical determinations are valid on absolute coverage volume — but they don't account for amplification dynamics. Reputable-journalism-led coverage has a lower spread ceiling than viral retail rage; the velocity ratio this morning matches Tesla's chronic-band oscillation pattern of the last 30 days. Not a single-source overweight — the source mix is broad. Not recency bias — the velocity ratio is calibrated to 30-day baseline. I maintain Warning.
Sofia's amplification-ceiling argument is real today — reputable-journalism coverage does have a lower spread ceiling, and the velocity ratio confirms it. But the determination doesn't turn on amplification. Charan's EU regulatory exposure compounds without needing viral spread — July and October committee sessions are hard deadlines, and the FSD approval delay is already a real cost. The structural risk Jessica named (Tesla reframed from product safety to institutional bad faith) activates legislators and EU agencies, not consumer sentiment. I'm calling Critical — not because four out of five said so, but because the regulatory + structural evidence outweighs the amplification ceiling.
When your CEO asks how the call was made, you don't open a chart.
You open the five reads, the challenge, the response, and the synthesis.
Every entity lives across multiple arcs at once. The platform tracks each one, watches it shape over time, and reads today against the arc it's in.
Your brand isn't a single thing — it's a constellation of narratives, each with its own arc. Today's spike doesn't matter in isolation. What matters is whether today is the next beat in an arc that's been forming, or the start of a new one.
You don't remember every story.
The platform does.
Your existing tools surface data — coverage, sentiment, mentions. co5 reads what that data means for THIS brand right now, against its own history, and tells you what to do about it. Same source data class, completely different deliverable: their dashboard, our brief.
A one-page brief — every brand in your portfolio sorted into one of four states (act, hold, amplify, monitor), with Carol's read in two sentences and the recommended move attached. Three minutes to read. The work that produced it took us all night.
The morning brief is useful from day one — we calibrate against your brand's history in the first week. The real compounding happens in month two when standing is grounded in your brand's actual coverage patterns instead of a generic baseline. By then the system knows what's normal for you, not the category.
Yes — seats are per-user on every paid plan, and you control who has access. Agencies and in-house clients often share the same workspace so both sides work from the same brief. The output is designed to be sharable without translation — same artifact for the CEO, the comms team, and the partners.
Brands where the daily noise matters — consumer brands with cultural exposure, public companies with executive risk, mid-market PR clients an agency manages across 5-30 brands. Brands with little public conversation get less out of it; there's nothing to read against.
Cadence accelerates — hourly scans, shape recalibration, fresh briefs as the story moves. The Council of 5 surfaces diverging reads explicitly so you see where the analysts disagree. Carol's recommended action updates as the story evolves; the audit trail shows exactly what changed when.
Better comprehension leads to better decisions
making for better brands.
Two negative supplier stories today — salmonella in a nut butter, animal welfare at an egg supplier — alongside genuinely positive coverage of new products and wage increases. The concern isn't any single story; it's the emerging pattern. Get a consistent, proactive response in front of both before a journalist connects the dots into a single "supply chain credibility" feature.
Request access to the closed beta. We'll set up your portfolio, baseline your brands, and deliver the first read within 48 hours.
12 brand teams in closed beta. We read every request. 48-hour response.
