Mk 150

---
name: mk-150
description: "Match Reviews to Purchase Barriers. Use when you need which review can answer which concern; apply this method to the specified inputs and verify the deliverable"
---

# MK-150｜Match Reviews to Purchase Barriers

For a regular chat, upload `packs/mk-150.md`; it includes the shared rules, this method, and required references

## Purpose

This Skill delivers: **Which review can answer which concern**

Keep review excerpts faithful; a recommendation, collaboration plan, or reuse arrangement does not mean the other party has been contacted

## Required Inputs

Raw inputs: original dated reviews, observed purchase concerns, product/pages, matched service or checkout records, quotation and advertising rights

## Method Steps

1. Extract each observed customer concern with its source, then read the full review context. Viewed-without-cart is a state to investigate, not a trust diagnosis
2. Match product, usage conditions, result and date. A review is usable only when it directly addresses the concern and rights permit its use. Different variants/uses or missing conditions require narrowing the claim or excluding it
3. Use product information for use/eligibility questions, verified terms for charges, and process fixes for payment/delivery failures. Prioritize a review only when the observed concern concerns trust or actual use
4. Select the most directly relevant usable review, retaining source and meaning. Stars, fame or comment count do not replace relevance. When only reviews are supplied, give candidate questions they can answer and the next original record needed to select one
5. Deliver review, supported claim, conditions, rights and use. Withdraw trust-creative priority when new cost/eligibility/process evidence appears, review conditions change or rights expire. Observed sales do not by themselves establish incremental impact

## Calculation and Interpretation

A review supports only its actual product/use scope; result strength and timing cannot exceed the original

Hypothetical check: a customer asks whether anyone has used the item, so an authorized same-variant review is relevant. Later service records show the real blocker is an unavailable delivery region; prioritize delivery/service-scope handling instead

Decision rules authored by ThinkWithBlack on 2026-10-14; original course sources are retained below

## Required Output Fields

| Order | Field | How to fill it |
|---:|---|---|
| 1 | Original evidence text / location | Original evidence, intermediate method result, or explicitly unknown; do not fabricate |
| 2 | Source and date | Original evidence, intermediate method result, or explicitly unknown; do not fabricate |
| 3 | Supported claim | Original evidence, intermediate method result, or explicitly unknown; do not fabricate |
| 4 | Applicable conditions | Original evidence, intermediate method result, or explicitly unknown; do not fabricate |
| 5 | Permission status | Original evidence, intermediate method result, or explicitly unknown; do not fabricate |
| 6 | Recommended use | Original evidence, intermediate method result, or explicitly unknown; do not fabricate |
| 7 | Inferences not supported | Original evidence, intermediate method result, or explicitly unknown; do not fabricate |

## Method Sources

Original file: Meta廣告學程 102 為什麼這些人不買

Source location: Testimonials

Source basis: Derived from course material

Original URL: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1VZM1BFp_CiefpdHFrSRKIDim5oOKHh52w6D5RUXi-Nc/edit

English translation of source excerpt retained in the master table:

> Creative B1: People who viewed but did not add to cart may simply not have bought (use limited-time/limited-quantity copy) or may distrust the brand (use third-party testimonial/review copy)