# opportunities

channel_id: body_is_weird
theme: Marine animal sensory systems and evolutionary adaptations
suggested_title: Octopuses Can't See Color. They're Also the Best at Matching It.
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T02:41:40.832954+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Colorblind animal perfectly matching colors is a genuine logical paradox. You cannot hear this fact and not want the answer. It's not 'mildly interesting' \u2014 it's 'wait, that's impossible.'"}, "demand_signal": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The octopus post has high engagement (0.982 score, 13 comments) and cephalopod content consistently performs. The 'no freshwater cephalopods' post also trending suggests strong general interest in cephalopod biology."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Camouflage footage is everywhere but the 'colorblind paradox' framing is underexploited. Searching for 'how do colorblind octopuses match colors' returns explainers but nothing that leads with this as the central hook of a short-form video."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "The skin-opsin system, decentralized processing, and philosophical implications of 'what is seeing' give this multiple layers of genuine depth. The reveal (skin can see) leads to another reveal (skin makes decisions) which leads to another (redefining vision itself)."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Octopus biology doesn't expire. This will be just as true and just as surprising in 5 years."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Zero prior interest in marine biology required. The hook works for anyone: 'colorblind creature matches colors perfectly.' It's a universal logical puzzle, not niche science."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Lots of 'octopuses are cool' content exists showing camouflage footage. Most focuses on the visual spectacle, not the logical paradox. The few that mention colorblindness treat it as a fun fact footnote rather than the central impossibility. No one has built a video around 'how does a colorblind animal match colors' as the core tension.", "missing_angle": "Starting with the logical impossibility rather than the cool footage. Making the viewer feel the paradox before showing them the solution. Framing it as a mystery about what 'seeing' even means, not just 'nature is amazing.'", "target_audience": "Someone who just watched a nature documentary clip of an octopus camouflaging and thought 'that's cool' \u2014 this video makes them realize they missed the actually insane part", "opening_hook": "This is an octopus matching the exact purple of this coral. It's perfect. Here's the problem: octopuses are colorblind. They literally cannot see the color purple. So how did it know what to match?", "critical_success_factor": "The opening must make the paradox feel genuinely impossible before offering any explanation. If viewers don't feel stuck on 'but that can't work,' the reveal won't land. The first 15 seconds must make them feel the contradiction in their gut.", "structure": ["THE PARADOX (0:00-0:30): Show stunning camouflage footage, then drop the bomb \u2014 they're colorblind. Sit in the impossibility. 'So how did it know?'", "THE FIRST REVEAL (0:30-2:00): Introduce skin-based opsins. The octopus skin can detect light. But wait \u2014 that still doesn't explain matching colors if the brain is colorblind...", "THE SECOND REVEAL (2:00-4:00): The skin makes decisions WITHOUT the brain. Each patch of skin is essentially its own tiny processor. The octopus isn't deciding to turn purple \u2014 hundreds of independent skin regions are each figuring it out locally.", "THE REFRAME (4:00-5:00): What does 'seeing' even mean? If your skin can detect light and respond to it without your brain, are you seeing with your whole body? Quick connection to human skin having vestigial light-sensitive cells (true but far less developed). End on: maybe 'seeing' isn't what we thought it was."], "verdict_reasoning": "A genuine logical paradox with a satisfying multi-layered reveal that perfectly fits the 'Your Body Is Weird' angle of bodies doing unexplainable things \u2014 and it extends to 'their body is weird' territory that still resonates with human curiosity about perception and senses.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: body_is_weird
theme: Viruses, death, and the boundaries of life
suggested_title: Rabies Makes You Terrified of Water (While You're Dying of Thirst)
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T02:41:40.832954+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "The image of dying of thirst while physically unable to drink is so counterintuitive and horrifying that it's impossible to encounter without wanting to understand. It breaks your mental model of how bodies work."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The TIL post has 433 comments\u2014massive engagement. The morbid questions post about swimming pools shows people are actively curious about the mechanics. Multiple rabies posts in one cluster signals sustained interest."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Hydrophobia videos exist but tend to be clinical or buried in general rabies content. No one owns 'the virus that makes you fear water' as a body-horror explainer angle."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "The reveal is genuinely satisfying (virus keeps saliva concentrated for transmission), and there are multiple additional layers: nerve travel, brain targeting, historical context, near-impossibility of treatment."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Rabies has existed for thousands of years and will continue to terrify. This isn't news-dependent at all."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Everyone has a body. Everyone drinks water. Everyone can imagine the horror of not being able to. Zero prior interest required."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Rabies explainers exist but they typically focus on 'rabies is deadly, get your shots.' The hydrophobia mechanism is usually mentioned as a footnote, not explored as the central mystery. Most content treats it clinically, not as the body horror story it actually is.", "missing_angle": "Framing hydrophobia as your body being weaponized against you\u2014the virus using YOUR throat to ensure ITS survival. It's not just a symptom; it's a hijacking. That reframe makes it viscerally personal.", "target_audience": "Someone who just read a headline about a rabies case and thought 'wait, why is rabies so scary again?' or someone scrolling at night who loves morbidly fascinating medical content", "opening_hook": "Imagine being so thirsty you're dying. Water is right in front of you. You try to drink it and your own throat betrays you\u2014seizing, choking, refusing. You're watching yourself die of thirst in front of a glass of water. This is what rabies does to a human brain, and there's a horrifying reason why.", "critical_success_factor": "The opening must make the viewer FEEL the horror of hydrophobia viscerally\u2014not explain it, but make them experience the trapped helplessness before revealing why.", "structure": "1. THE HORROR: Open with the hydrophobia experience\u2014dying of thirst, unable to swallow. 2. THE HIJACK: Explain how rabies travels through nerves to your brainstem and rewires swallowing reflexes. 3. THE WHY: Reveal the evolutionary logic\u2014keeping saliva concentrated for transmission. 4. THE ESCAPE (that doesn't work): The Milwaukee Protocol and why rabies is essentially unbeatable once symptoms appear.", "verdict_reasoning": "This is a perfect fit for 'Your Body Is Weird'\u2014a counterintuitive body horror story where a virus hijacks your own survival instincts, with strong demand signal and no one owning this specific angle.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: body_is_weird
theme: Psychology of human bonding and attraction
suggested_title: Why You Want to Bite Things That Are Too Cute
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T02:41:40.832954+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Universal experience that sounds insane when articulated. Everyone has felt this but nobody talks about it. The gap between 'I want to bite this puppy' and 'that's a normal brain function' is genuinely unresolvable without explanation."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The TooAfraidToAsk post has moderate engagement (30 comments). However, the universality of the experience suggests latent demand \u2014 people don't ask because they're embarrassed, not because they don't wonder."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Existing content treats this as a psychology curiosity, not as a 'your body does this weird thing' explainer. No one owns the irreverent, body-focused angle. Most videos are titled 'cute aggression explained' not 'why you want to bite puppies.'"}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Research is solid (Yale study by Oriana Arag\u00f3n), mechanism is explainable, multiple related phenomena (crying when happy, nervous laughter) create depth. The evolutionary angle adds a satisfying 'why this exists' layer."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Puppies will always be cute. People will always feel this. Zero news dependency."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Literally anyone who has ever seen something cute. This is the most universal possible experience for a body-weird video. Crosses every demographic."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "SciShow and similar channels have covered this, but typically in dry explainer format buried in longer psychology compilations. The hook is usually buried ('the science of cuteness' rather than leading with the violent urge).", "missing_angle": "Lead with the uncomfortable truth \u2014 'you want to BITE things' \u2014 and frame it as body weirdness rather than psychology lecture. The irreverent 'too afraid to ask about your body' angle makes this feel like finally getting an answer to something you were embarrassed to Google.", "target_audience": "Someone scrolling at 11pm who just caught themselves making a weird growling noise at their cat and wondered 'am I okay?'", "opening_hook": "You see a puppy. It's perfect. And for one horrible second, you want to squeeze it until it pops. You're not a monster. You're experiencing something called cute aggression \u2014 and your brain is doing it on purpose.", "critical_success_factor": "The opening must make the viewer feel SEEN and slightly uncomfortable \u2014 describe the violent cute-urge so specifically that they think 'oh god that's exactly what happens to me.' If the opening is too clinical ('researchers have identified a phenomenon...'), the hook dies.", "structure": "1) THE CONFESSION: Describe the experience in uncomfortable detail (you see puppy, you want violence) \u2014 normalize that this happens to everyone. 2) THE NAME: This has a clinical term \u2014 cute aggression / dimorphous expression. You're not broken. 3) THE MECHANISM: Your brain's emotional dimmer switch \u2014 when positive emotion threatens to overwhelm, inject opposite to regulate. Brain scan evidence. 4) THE EVOLUTIONARY WHY: You can't protect the baby if you're incapacitated by joy. The aggression snaps you back to functional. 5) THE FAMILY: Other dimorphous expressions \u2014 crying at weddings, nervous laughter. Your brain does this pattern constantly.", "verdict_reasoning": "Perfect channel fit: universally experienced body phenomenon that sounds unhinged, has solid science behind it, and matches 'TooAfraidToAsk about your body' positioning exactly.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: body_is_weird
theme: Insects and their strange ecological relationships
suggested_title: This Plant Smells Like a Half-Eaten Ant (On Purpose)
verdict: NEEDS_RESEARCH
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T02:41:40.832954+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "The phrase 'half-eaten ant' is so weirdly specific that you cannot encounter it without needing to know more. It violates your expectations at multiple levels."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "Moderate engagement (0.89 score, 16 comments on TIL). Not viral numbers, but the TIL framing suggests genuine surprise from readers. The specificity of the hook matters more than volume here."}, "content_gap": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "No video content exists on this specific plant/phenomenon. It's a 2023 discovery with only text coverage. Wide open."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Strong depth \u2014 chemical signaling, evolutionary deception, alarm pheromones, and the broader 'plants that smell like death' category. The only risk is the research being too recent/thin, but the mechanism is explainable."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is a permanent fact about biology, not tied to any news cycle. Will work indefinitely."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Anyone can engage with 'plant smells like half-eaten ant' regardless of interest in botany. The specificity is the hook. Slightly niche because it's about plants/insects rather than human bodies."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "There are a few science news articles about this plant (Aristolochia microstoma, discovered ~2023), but no engaging video explainer exists. Most coverage is dry botanical reporting.", "missing_angle": "Framing this through the lens of 'your body probably has alarm smells too' and the visceral weirdness of insects being attracted to the smell of their own kind being eaten. The body-focused, slightly gross angle that fits 'Your Body Is Weird.'", "target_audience": "Someone lying in bed scrolling who thinks 'I know nature is weird but WHAT' \u2014 the person who loved the 'there's a wasp that turns cockroaches into zombies' video", "opening_hook": "There's a plant that smells like a half-eaten ant. Not a dead ant. Not ant pheromones. Specifically a half-eaten ant. And it evolved that smell on purpose. Which means somewhere out there, bugs are actively attracted to the smell of their friends being eaten alive. What is happening?", "critical_success_factor": "The video must explain WHY 'half-eaten' is different from 'dead' \u2014 that's the core of the curiosity. If we can't clearly explain that distinction, the video collapses into 'plant smells weird' which isn't enough.", "structure": "1. COLD OPEN: The absurd specificity of 'half-eaten ant smell' \u2014 what does that even mean? 2. THE MECHANISM: What chemicals create this smell, why 'half-eaten' is different from 'dead', how the plant synthesizes it. 3. THE BIGGER PICTURE: Other plants that mimic death/distress, and why deception is evolution's favorite trick. 4. THE BODY TIE-IN: Do humans have alarm smells? (Spoiler: yes, we do \u2014 fear sweat is chemically different from exercise sweat.)", "verdict_reasoning": "The hook is undeniable and the content gap is wide open, but the science is recent (2023) and needs verification \u2014 specifically confirming the mechanism and gathering enough detail to sustain a full video without padding.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: body_is_weird
theme: Human genetics and chromosome evolution
suggested_title: You Have a Broken Chromosome. It's Why You're Human.
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T02:41:40.832954+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The contradiction is strong: we're taught chromosome problems = disorders/death, yet here's a chromosome problem that made us human. Most people don't know chromosome 2 is a fusion. The hook 'you have a broken chromosome' is personal and surprising."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Multiple posts about chromosome numbers/fusion across r/biology, r/evolution, and r/genetics (40+ comments combined). The question appears in different forms, suggesting genuine recurring curiosity. Not viral-level engagement but strong consistent interest."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Existing content frames this as 'proof of evolution' for science communication. No one owns the 'your body is weird' personal angle. The irreverent, curiosity-driven take is unoccupied territory."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Multiple layers: basic chromosome explanation, the fusion event, how it spread, the visible telomere scar, what it means for understanding ourselves. Can easily fill 5+ minutes with genuinely interesting reveals."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is permanent biology. Chromosome 2 fusion happened millions of years ago and the explanation will never change. No news cycle dependency."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Anyone with a body cares about their body. The hook 'you have a broken chromosome' works even if you've never thought about genetics. The only limitation is it requires basic comfort with science content."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Educational content on chromosome 2 fusion exists, but it's typically presented as dry evidence for evolution (aimed at creationists) or buried in genetics lectures. No one has framed it as 'YOUR body is weird' \u2014 a personal, irreverent take on why you have a genetic 'mistake' that made you human.", "missing_angle": "Making it personal and weird. Not 'evidence for evolution' but 'you have a broken chromosome and that's why you exist.' The curiosity-driven, slightly irreverent TooAfraidToAsk angle that makes you look at your own body differently.", "target_audience": "Someone who remembers learning about chromosomes in biology class, vaguely recalls that 'wrong numbers = bad,' and would be delighted to discover they've been carrying genetic evidence of human evolution in their own cells this whole time.", "opening_hook": "Right now, inside every cell in your body, you're carrying a genetic accident. Your ancestors had 48 chromosomes. You have 46. Somewhere along the line, two chromosomes got stuck together \u2014 a mutation that should have been a disaster. But instead... it made you human.", "critical_success_factor": "The opening must make it PERSONAL \u2014 'you have a broken chromosome' \u2014 not academic. If it feels like a genetics lecture, it fails. If it feels like discovering something weird about your own body, it works.", "structure": "1. THE HOOK (0:00-0:30): You have a broken chromosome. Every cell in your body. Two chromosomes got stuck together that shouldn't be. 2. THE PROBLEM (0:30-2:00): What chromosomes do, why numbers matter, why having the wrong number usually means disaster (Down syndrome, miscarriage, etc.). 3. THE PARADOX (2:00-3:30): Your ancestors had 48. You have 46. Somewhere, someone was born 'wrong' \u2014 and became the ancestor of all humans. How? 4. THE REVEAL (3:30-5:30): Chromosome 2 fusion, how it spread through populations, why 47-chromosome hybrids work fine, and the visible scar \u2014 ancient telomeres stuck in the middle of your DNA right now.", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong counterintuitive hook that fits the channel identity perfectly, excellent depth, clear content gap in the 'your body is weird' framing, and high evergreen potential.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: body_is_weird
theme: Animals and humans adapting to temperature/climate
suggested_title: Humans Are the Only Mammal That Can't Survive Their Own Habitat
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T02:41:40.832954+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The realization that you'd die in the environment you evolved in while a deer would be fine is genuinely jarring. It breaks the assumption that evolution makes animals 'fit' for their environment."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "90 comments on the original post shows real engagement. The question resonated because it's something people have vaguely wondered but never articulated."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Persistence hunting videos exist (like the famous 'why humans are the scariest animal' content), but the specific hook of 'you can't survive your habitat' as the entry point is underexplored."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This has multiple reveal layers: sweating mechanism, persistence hunting, the trade-off framework, why we left Africa, how clothes/fire enabled global spread. Could easily fill 5-8 minutes."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Human biology doesn't change. This will work forever."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Everyone has a body. Everyone has felt cold. The hook doesn't require any prior interest in biology \u2014 it's about the viewer's own experience."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Videos about human evolution exist, but they focus on brains, tools, or bipedalism. The specific angle of 'you can't survive your own habitat because you traded that for being an endurance predator' isn't well-covered. Most content frames human adaptations as strengths; this flips the framing to explain an apparent weakness.", "missing_angle": "Starting from the counterintuitive weakness ('we can't survive naked') and revealing it's actually a trade-off for a superpower (best endurance hunter on Earth). The 'Your Body Is Weird' brand voice makes this feel like a fun 'wait, I'm actually a pursuit predator?' revelation rather than a biology lecture.", "target_audience": "Someone who just stepped outside without a jacket and thought 'why am I so weak compared to animals?' \u2014 or anyone who's ever wondered why humans need so much gear to survive outdoors", "opening_hook": "A deer can survive a Michigan winter. No coat. No shelter. No problem. You? You'd be dead in hours. And here's the weird part \u2014 humans evolved on this planet. So why are we the only mammal that can't survive our own habitat without help?", "critical_success_factor": "The video must make the viewer feel like they just learned they're a predator, not that they learned they're broken. The emotional arc goes from 'humans are weak' to 'holy shit, I'm a pursuit predator' \u2014 that reframe is everything.", "structure": "1. THE PARADOX (60s): Set up the problem \u2014 deer, foxes, bears all survive their ecosystems naked. Humans evolved on Earth but can't. Show how fast we'd die. 2. THE WRONG ANSWER (45s): Address the obvious theory (we have big brains and tools, so we didn't need to adapt) and explain why that's backwards \u2014 we had to adapt first to survive long enough to develop tools. 3. THE TRADE-OFF (90s): Reveal sweating, persistence hunting, and why being the best endurance runner on Earth meant sacrificing temperature tolerance. Show the actual hunt footage. 4. THE IMPLICATION (60s): Clothes and fire weren't conveniences \u2014 they were survival necessities that let us leave Africa and conquer every climate. Your 'weakness' is evidence you're a hyper-specialized pursuit predator.", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong curiosity hook that directly fits the 'Your Body Is Weird' brand, excellent depth with multiple reveal layers, high engagement signal, and universal appeal \u2014 everyone has felt temperature discomfort and wondered why animals seem fine.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: body_is_weird
theme: Digestive and GI distress signals
suggested_title: Why Giving Birth Can Make You Allergic to Alcohol
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T02:41:40.832954+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The idea that giving birth can permanently change what your body tolerates is genuinely counterintuitive. Most people assume allergies are stable or develop in childhood \u2014 not that pregnancy can flip switches."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "67 comments on the source post is strong. The phenomenon appears frequently in parenting forums. This is a question many women have but feel weird asking."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Medical content exists but it's clinical. No one has made a personality-driven, curiosity-first explainer that leads with the alcohol angle."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Multiple layers: the immune shift during pregnancy, why it doesn't always reset correctly, why alcohol specifically triggers it, other post-pregnancy allergies, whether it's reversible. Could easily fill 5+ minutes."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Women will keep getting pregnant and keep experiencing this. Not tied to any news cycle."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Anyone who's been pregnant, plans to be, or knows someone who has. Also anyone fascinated by how the body can change overnight. The 'alcohol' angle hooks people who might not care about 'pregnancy health.'"}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Medical explainers exist about 'allergies after pregnancy' but they're clinical, dry, and don't lead with the specific 'alcohol' hook. No one owns the 'wait, giving birth broke my ability to drink?' angle with personality.", "missing_angle": "Leading with the most relatable and socially relevant version (alcohol) instead of generic 'allergies,' and framing pregnancy as an immune system factory reset rather than just 'hormonal changes'", "target_audience": "A woman in her late 20s or 30s who noticed her body changed after pregnancy and wondered if she was imagining it \u2014 or a woman considering pregnancy who's vaguely worried about 'what it does to your body'", "opening_hook": "She could drink wine, beer, cocktails \u2014 no problem for over a decade. Then she had a baby. Now one sip of alcohol and her face, neck, and arms break out in hives. And she's not alone \u2014 thousands of women report the exact same thing. What did pregnancy do to their bodies?", "critical_success_factor": "The opening must make this feel universally relevant, not like a 'pregnancy content' video \u2014 lead with 'your body can just decide to reject something it tolerated for decades' as the hook, pregnancy is the mechanism.", "structure": "1. THE FLIP (60s): Stories of women who drank fine before, now can't \u2014 establish the phenomenon as real and widespread. 2. THE REBOOT (90s): What pregnancy does to your immune system and why it doesn't always come back the same. 3. WHY ALCOHOL (60s): Acetaldehyde, histamines, and why booze is a common trigger. 4. THE BIGGER PICTURE (60s): Other post-pregnancy allergies, whether it's permanent, and what this tells us about how fragile our tolerances actually are.", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong hook that perfectly fits 'Your Body Is Weird' identity, excellent depth, high demand signal, evergreen topic, and exploits the channel's 'TooAfraidToAsk about your body' competitive gap \u2014 this is exactly the kind of thing women wonder about but don't know who to ask.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: body_is_weird
theme: Origins and fundamental nature of life
suggested_title: You Have More Bacteria Cells Than Human Cells
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T02:41:40.832954+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The specific numbers create a genuine 'wait, what?' \u2014 most people assume they're one thing, and the near-equal ratio is more unsettling than the debunked 10:1 because it implies genuine partnership. Not quite a 5 because the concept of 'you have bacteria' isn't totally novel, but the specific framing ('more bacteria than human cells') lands hard."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The TIL post has a 0.994 score and 152 comments \u2014 strong engagement. The specificity of the engagement (people arguing about what this means for identity) is more valuable than volume. This hit a nerve."}, "content_gap": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "Gut microbiome content exists everywhere, but mostly in a health/optimization frame. The 'identity crisis' angle is underexplored in short-form, though some science communicators have touched it. Not a total gap, but a fresh angle exists."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Multiple layers of surprise: the corrected numbers, what bacteria actually contribute (neurotransmitters, not just digestion), the identity philosophy, and weird implications like antibiotics. Could easily fill 5+ minutes with substance."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Human biology doesn't change. This will be just as true and just as weird in 5 years."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Everyone has a body. Everyone assumes they're 'one thing.' This requires zero prior interest in biology \u2014 it's universal."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "There are plenty of 'gut microbiome' videos, but they're clinical and health-focused ('improve your gut health!'). The philosophy-of-identity angle \u2014 'what even are you?' \u2014 is underexplored in short-form. Most content treats bacteria as something you HAVE, not something you ARE.", "missing_angle": "This video treats the bacteria as co-authors of your identity, not just health passengers. It's irreverent and existentially playful rather than clinical. It asks 'who's driving?' not 'how do I optimize my flora?'", "target_audience": "Someone staring at their hand in the shower suddenly wondering 'am I... me?' \u2014 anyone who's ever had a weird body thought but didn't know how to articulate it", "opening_hook": "Count every cell in your body right now. 30 trillion of them are human. But 38 trillion of them? Those are bacteria. You're not a person. You're a walking ecosystem that learned to talk.", "critical_success_factor": "The opening must land the specific numbers with visceral impact \u2014 not 'you have a lot of bacteria' but 'count them: 38 trillion bacteria, 30 trillion you. Do the math.' The viewer must feel the identity wobble immediately.", "structure": "1. THE NUMBERS - Open with the specific cell counts, establish the 'you're more bacteria than human' frame, debunk the old 10:1 myth and explain why 1.3:1 is weirder. 2. WHAT THEY DO - Gut bacteria aren't passengers; they make serotonin, digest things you can't, train your immune system. You literally cannot function without them. 3. THE IDENTITY CRISIS - If bacteria influence your cravings, mood, and decisions, where does 'you' end? When you take antibiotics, what are you killing? 4. THE PARTNERSHIP - You didn't evolve to tolerate bacteria; you co-evolved as a team. 'You' were never a single thing.", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong specific hook with exact numbers, high Reddit engagement, perfect fit for 'Your Body Is Weird' channel identity, deep enough for a full video, and universally accessible \u2014 this is the kind of 'TooAfraidToAsk about your body' content the channel was built for.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: body_is_weird
theme: Food safety concerns and nutrition guidelines
suggested_title: Celery Used to Cost More Than Caviar
verdict: WORTH_MAKING
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T02:41:40.832954+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The specific comparison to caviar creates genuine cognitive dissonance. Most people can't reconcile 'boring celery' with 'luxury item' without explanation. Strong 'wait, what?' that demands resolution."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "97 comments on the TIL post indicates real engagement with this specific detail. It's not just theme-level interest - people are specifically discussing and sharing this fact."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "While the fact exists in listicles and TILs, no one has made a dedicated short-form explainer that owns this hook. It's an orphan fact waiting for a video home."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Agricultural history, blanching technique, cultural practices (celery vases), the market collapse, and broader patterns of luxury devaluation provide multiple layers. Can easily fill 3-5 minutes without padding."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Historical facts don't expire. Celery will still be cheap next year. The cognitive dissonance is permanent."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Everyone knows celery. Everyone has encountered it. You don't need to care about food history to find 'more expensive than caviar' surprising. The hook transcends niche interest."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "The TIL post has high engagement (97 comments), and there are scattered articles about celery history. However, most content treats this as a fun fact footnote rather than building a full narrative arc. No short-form video owns this specific hook with a 'your body is weird' / 'food history meets biology' angle.", "missing_angle": "Framing this through the 'Your Body Is Weird' lens - your taste buds, your digestion, your cells have no idea that celery used to be expensive. The vegetable hasn't changed. Your body processes it identically to how a Gilded Age millionaire's body did. Status is entirely constructed. This gives it a body-focused hook rather than just a history lesson.", "target_audience": "Someone standing in a grocery store looking at celery, or someone mindlessly crunching celery sticks with hummus, who would be delighted to learn that same vegetable was once served in crystal vases to railroad tycoons.", "opening_hook": "This is celery. It costs about 2 dollars. A hundred years ago, it was the third most popular dish on New York restaurant menus - and it cost more than caviar. The same vegetable you get for free with buffalo wings was once a luxury only the wealthy could afford. Here's what happened.", "critical_success_factor": "Must find and visualize the specific moment of transition - ideally a named celery variety or farming technique that crashed the market. The video needs a villain or hero, not just 'things gradually changed.' The historical specificity is what separates a great video from a forgettable one.", "structure": "1) HOOK: Celery costs $2, once cost more than caviar (0:00-0:30) 2) THE DIFFICULTY: Why celery was nearly impossible to grow - blanching, labor, unreliability (0:30-2:00) 3) THE CULTURE: Celery vases, Gilded Age dinner parties, celery as status symbol (2:00-3:30) 4) THE COLLAPSE: New varieties, industrial farming, overnight devaluation - plus pattern with other foods (3:30-5:00) 5) THE BODY ANGLE: Your cells process it exactly the same as a railroad baron's did (5:00-5:30)", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong hook with verifiable depth and excellent channel fit - the 'your body doesn't know the difference' angle perfectly exploits the 'Your Body Is Weird' competitive gap, but it needs research to nail the specific agricultural and cultural details before production.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: body_is_weird
theme: ADHD medication questions and drug interaction concerns
suggested_title: Why Stimulants Make Some People Sleepy
verdict: WORTH_MAKING
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T02:41:40.832954+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The stimulant paradox is genuinely counterintuitive. Most people's mental model is 'stimulant = energy = wired.' The idea that speed could make someone calm creates a real 'wait, what?' moment. Not quite a 5 because it's somewhat known in ADHD-aware circles, but for general audiences it's surprising."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The source post has only 2 comments and low engagement, but ADHD content broadly has massive demand. The specific phentermine angle is niche, but the underlying phenomenon (stimulant paradox) touches millions of people. Cross-referencing: ADHD medication posts appear repeatedly in this cluster, suggesting persistent interest."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Plenty of ADHD content exists, but the 'stimulant paradox as body weirdness' angle is underserved. Most content either assumes diagnosis or is dry medical explainer. The curiosity-driven 'why does this backwards thing happen' framing has room."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Excellent depth. Dopamine neuroscience, prefrontal cortex function, historical research, related phenomena (caffeine naps, paradoxical reactions), implications for self-understanding. This could easily be 5-8 minutes with multiple satisfying reveals."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Human neurobiology doesn't change. The stimulant paradox is a permanent feature of how brains work. No news cycle dependency."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "ADHD affects ~5-10% of adults, and many more suspect they have it. Beyond that, most people have noticed caffeine affecting them strangely or know someone who says 'coffee doesn't work on me.' The phenomenon is observable even if you don't have ADHD."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Lots of ADHD content exists, but it's mostly either (1) clinical explainers that are dry and informational, or (2) ADHD influencer content that assumes you already identify with the diagnosis. Almost nothing approaches it from 'here's a weird body thing you might have noticed' angle\u2014the curiosity-first approach that fits this channel's competitive gap.", "missing_angle": "Starting from the observable paradox (stimulants making people calm) rather than starting from the diagnosis (here's what ADHD is). This makes it accessible to people who don't know if they have ADHD and are just curious about a weird phenomenon. It's body-first, not medical-first.", "target_audience": "Someone who's always wondered why coffee doesn't hit them like it hits their friends, or who took an Adderall in college and weirdly just felt... normal. They're scrolling at 11 PM, probably mildly suspicious they might have ADHD but haven't pursued it.", "opening_hook": "Someone took a weight loss pill\u2014a stimulant\u2014and for the first time in their life, felt completely calm. That's backwards, right? Stimulants should make you wired. Unless your brain has been running a marathon this whole time and nobody told you.", "critical_success_factor": "The opening must make non-ADHD viewers curious about the paradox, not feel like it's 'ADHD content not for me.' Lead with the weirdness, not the diagnosis.", "structure": "1. THE PARADOX: Open with the phentermine story\u2014took a stimulant, felt calm. Expand to coffee not working, energy drinks making people sleepy. Set up: why would stimulants do the opposite? 2. THE UNDERSTIMULATED BRAIN: Explain dopamine baseline and prefrontal cortex underactivation in ADHD. Your brain is already running a marathon trying to find stimulation. 3. THE FUEL METAPHOR: Stimulants don't add energy to an energized system\u2014they add fuel to an empty tank. The calm isn't sedation, it's satisfaction. 4. THE IMPLICATIONS: What this means for understanding your own brain, why accidental diagnosis happens, and the bigger point\u2014your body gives you signals if you know how to read them.", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong curiosity hook, excellent depth, fits channel identity perfectly, but the source post itself is low-engagement\u2014the hook is more derived from the phenomenon than viral demand for this specific framing.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: body_is_weird
theme: Morbid curiosity about death, pain, and bodily extremes
suggested_title: Your Vocal Cords Don't Need Your Brain to Work
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T02:41:40.832954+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The decapitated body screaming concept is viscerally arresting. It takes something we assume (death = silence) and challenges it with uncomfortable logic. Not quite a 5 because some viewers might dismiss it as 'gross clickbait' before the science hook lands."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The source post has only 12 comments but r/morbidquestions consistently shows high engagement for body mechanics questions. The 'uncomfortable facts about the human body' post (136 comments) and 'what does death feel like' (44 comments) show appetite for this content. Cross-source is low though."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Searched YouTube: guillotine videos focus on consciousness/blinking. 'Post-mortem sounds' videos are clinical forensics content. Nobody has packaged 'your vocal cords work without you' as a body-horror science explainer in the irreverent 'Your Body Is Weird' style."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This has multiple layers: voice mechanics, forensic case studies, historical experiments, philosophical implications about selfhood. The reveal (voice is plumbing) is both satisfying and slightly unsettling - exactly what this channel needs."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Human anatomy doesn't change. The mechanics of voice production and death sounds are permanent topics. Zero news-cycle dependency."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Anyone with a body (everyone) is implicitly curious about what it does. The morbid angle might lose some viewers, but the 'your voice is just mechanics' reframe appeals even to people who wouldn't click on 'death content.'"}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "There are videos about 'what happens after you die' and 'guillotine consciousness' but they focus on the brain/awareness angle. Nobody has done the voice mechanics angle - 'could a corpse make sound' - which is more visceral and surprising", "missing_angle": "Reframing voice as mechanical plumbing rather than something mystical or personal. The horror isn't death - it's realizing your voice isn't 'yours,' it's just physics", "target_audience": "Someone lying in bed at 1am who just went down a Wikipedia rabbit hole about consciousness and is now wondering what happens when we die - not in a spiritual way, but mechanically", "opening_hook": "In 1905, a French doctor asked a guillotined prisoner to blink if he could hear him. The head blinked twice. But here's the question nobody thought to ask: if you pushed air through that severed neck... could the head still speak?", "critical_success_factor": "The tone must be curious and irreverent, not gruesome or sensationalist. This is 'huh, weird' science, not shock content. The reveal that 'your voice is plumbing' should feel like a lightbulb moment, not a horror movie.", "structure": "1. COLD OPEN: The guillotine blinking story + the question nobody asked about sound (0:00-0:45)\n2. HOW YOUR VOICE ACTUALLY WORKS: Anatomical breakdown - air, cords, shaping. The brain is just the 'on switch' (0:45-2:30)\n3. POST-MORTEM SOUNDS: Forensic cases of bodies making noises, why it happens, what it sounds like (2:30-4:00)\n4. THE UNCOMFORTABLE CONCLUSION: Your voice isn't 'you' - it's physics. What else about your body runs without you? (4:00-5:00)", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong counterintuitive hook with excellent depth, perfect channel fit (body-focused, irreverent, 'too afraid to ask'), clear content gap, and evergreen relevance - this is exactly what 'Your Body Is Weird' should make.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: body_is_weird
theme: Evolutionary biology questions and mechanisms
suggested_title: Why Men Have Bigger Tongues Than Women
verdict: WORTH_MAKING
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T02:41:40.832954+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The detail is genuinely surprising and personally verifiable. Most people have never considered their tongue as sexually dimorphic. The 'wait, what?' is strong because it's about YOUR body."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The Reddit post has moderate engagement (score 0.99, 5 comments). Not viral, but the specificity of the question suggests genuine curiosity. Cross-source count is low (1)."}, "content_gap": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Searched my knowledge \u2014 no popular explainer exists on this specific angle. Sleep apnea content touches tongue size but never makes the sex difference the hook."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Multiple theories to explore, health implications (sleep apnea), and the satisfying twist that we don't fully understand it. Can easily fill 3-5 minutes with substance."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Human anatomy doesn't change. This fact will be just as surprising in 5 years."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Everyone has a tongue. The hook works regardless of whether you care about biology \u2014 it's about your own body."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Sleep apnea content mentions tongue size as a risk factor but doesn't explore the sex difference. Anatomy content covers tongue function but not dimorphism. No one has made 'your tongue is sexually dimorphic and we don't know why' the hook.", "missing_angle": "Framing tongue size as an unexplained evolutionary mystery about YOUR body rather than a clinical fact buried in medical literature", "target_audience": "Someone sitting on their couch who just unconsciously touched their tongue after reading the title and is now deeply curious about a body part they've had for decades without ever thinking about", "opening_hook": "Go ahead, stick out your tongue. If you're a guy, it's statistically longer, wider, and thicker than any woman's in the room. Not by a little \u2014 by a lot. And nobody can explain why.", "critical_success_factor": "The opening must make viewers immediately aware of their own tongue \u2014 create that moment of 'wait, I never noticed this about my own body.' If the hook feels clinical rather than personal, it fails.", "structure": "1. THE REVEAL: Tongue size is sexually dimorphic \u2014 here's how pronounced the difference actually is (cite measurements). 2. THE THEORIES: Speech acoustics, airway mechanics, and sexual selection \u2014 what each hypothesis claims. 3. THE IMPLICATION: The sleep apnea connection and why this matters for health. 4. THE MYSTERY: Why this obvious difference is barely studied and what it tells us about blind spots in anatomy research.", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong personal hook that fits 'Your Body Is Weird' perfectly \u2014 it's a counterintuitive fact about YOUR anatomy that you can verify immediately, with enough depth to sustain a video but needs fact-checking on the specific studies.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: body_is_weird
theme: Paleontology and evolutionary discoveries
suggested_title: You're Part Neanderthal (And It's Doing Something)
verdict: WORTH_MAKING
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T02:41:40.832954+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The hook 'Neanderthals didn't go extinct, they're inside you' contradicts something everyone learned in school. The follow-up 'and it's doing things' opens a genuine information gap. Strong 'wait, what?' but not quite a 5 because the general idea of Neanderthal DNA in humans has been covered before \u2014 the angle needs to emphasize the 'it's active' element."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The post has 20 comments in r/genetics \u2014 moderate engagement. Cross-source count is only 1. The topic is evergreen interest but this specific post isn't viral. The demand is implied by the perennial fascination with 'what makes me me' questions rather than explicit engagement on this post."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "General 'Neanderthal DNA' content exists but is mostly historical or DNA-test focused. The specific angle of 'what is that DNA doing in your body RIGHT NOW' with health implications is underexplored in short-form. No major channel owns this specific hook."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Excellent depth. Multiple layers: (1) the interbreeding history, (2) which genes survived and why, (3) specific health effects (immune system, skin, depression links), (4) the philosophical reframe of what 'extinction' means. Can easily fill 4-6 minutes with genuinely interesting information."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Completely evergreen. The fact that humans carry Neanderthal DNA isn't tied to any news cycle. This will be true and interesting forever."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Appeals broadly because everyone has a body and everyone learned about Neanderthals in school. The hook doesn't require prior interest in genetics or paleontology. Slight ding because 'evolution/DNA' topics sometimes trigger disinterest in certain audiences."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "There are educational videos about Neanderthals and human evolution, but most are either dry documentaries or clickbait 'Are You Part Neanderthal?' DNA test videos. None frame it around 'what is that DNA actually doing in your body right now?' The existing content treats it as history; this video treats it as biology happening inside you.", "missing_angle": "The 'Your Body Is Weird' framing \u2014 this isn't about ancient history, it's about your current body being a Neanderthal hybrid. The video makes it personal and present-tense rather than historical and abstract.", "target_audience": "Someone lying in bed scrolling TikTok who vaguely remembers learning 'Neanderthals went extinct' in school and has never once thought about whether they personally carry Neanderthal DNA.", "opening_hook": "You have Neanderthal DNA in your body right now. Not metaphorically \u2014 literally. Between 1 and 4 percent of your genome came from a species you were taught went extinct 40,000 years ago. And here's what's weird: that DNA isn't just sitting there like a fossil. It's doing things.", "critical_success_factor": "The video must make the viewer feel like they're learning something about THEIR OWN body, not watching a history documentary. Every fact should connect back to 'and here's what that means for you personally.'", "structure": "1. The Lie You Learned \u2014 'Neanderthals went extinct 40,000 years ago. Except... they didn't.' Reveal the interbreeding. 2. The Hybrid You \u2014 Show the 1-4% figure, explain it's not random, introduce which genes survived and why evolution kept them. 3. What It's Doing \u2014 Specific health effects: immune benefits, skin/hair, and the downsides (depression, clotting, addiction links). 4. The Reframe \u2014 'Extinction' doesn't mean what you think. Neanderthals are the most successful dead species in history \u2014 they live on in 7 billion people.", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong curiosity hook with excellent depth and perfect channel fit, but the core fact (humans have Neanderthal DNA) is not brand-new information \u2014 the video's success depends on the 'it's actively affecting you' framing being genuinely surprising and well-researched.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: body_is_weird
theme: Bone and joint injuries
suggested_title: The Fall That Made Her Lose Control of Her Bladder AND Bowels Instantly
verdict: WORTH_MAKING
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T02:41:40.832954+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Losing bladder AND bowel control from one fall is genuinely shocking. The simultaneity is the hook \u2014 most people would assume these are separate systems."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "87 comments on the source post indicates high engagement. The post score of 0.994 suggests strong algorithmic signal. Back pain and incontinence are universally relatable fears."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Cauda equina content exists but is clinical and aimed at people already experiencing symptoms. No one owns the 'your spine has a kill switch' viral angle."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The anatomy is fascinating (horse tail nerves), the emergency timeline adds stakes, the evolutionary explanation adds depth. This isn't a one-sentence fun fact."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Human anatomy doesn't change. Ice falls happen every winter. Back injuries are perennially relevant. This will work in 6 months or 6 years."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Anyone with a spine cares about this. The 'body horror of normal life' angle transcends medical interest. People who've never thought about neurology will watch this."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Medical channels cover cauda equina syndrome but frame it clinically ('symptoms of CES'). No viral content frames it as 'one fall can make you lose control of two systems instantly' \u2014 the body horror angle that makes it shareable.", "missing_angle": "Framing the spine as having a 'single point of failure' that controls multiple embarrassing functions \u2014 the engineering flaw in your body you never knew about.", "target_audience": "Someone who just tweaked their back doing something mundane and is now lying in bed wondering if they should be worried \u2014 and everyone who's ever fallen on ice and thought 'that could have been bad.'", "opening_hook": "She slipped on ice. Hit her lower back. And within seconds, she couldn't hold her pee OR her poop. Not one \u2014 both. At the same time. Here's what actually happened inside her spine.", "critical_success_factor": "The tone must be 'fascinating body fact' not 'terrifying medical warning.' The viewer should feel smarter and slightly amazed, not anxious about every time they've fallen. Lead with wonder at the anatomy, not fear of the outcome.", "structure": "1. THE INCIDENT: Tell the story \u2014 one fall, two systems fail (30 sec)\n2. THE ANATOMY: What is the cauda equina and why does it control everything (60 sec)\n3. THE DESIGN FLAW: Why your body routes critical functions through one vulnerable point (45 sec)\n4. WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW: Red flags and the emergency timeline (30 sec)", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong hook with genuine 'wait, what?' factor, good depth, clear gap in existing content \u2014 but not MAKE_NOW because it requires careful medical accuracy verification and the right tone to avoid being too scary.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: body_is_weird
theme: Consciousness and communication after severe brain trauma
suggested_title: Why Your Eyes Are the Last Thing to Die
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T02:41:40.832954+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Strongly counterintuitive. Everyone has some experience with this phenomenon (movies, grandparents, stories) but nobody can explain it. The 'wait, why?' is immediate and unresolvable without explanation."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "Moderate Reddit engagement (4 comments on the direct post) but the question appears organically - not a trending topic but a persistent human curiosity. The cross-pollination with locked-in syndrome stories suggests latent interest."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Medical explainers exist but nobody owns this specific angle. Searching 'why do eyes work in locked-in syndrome' returns clinical content, not engaging explainers. The 'Your Body Is Weird' framing is wide open."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Perfect depth. The cranial nerve explanation takes 60+ seconds to do properly, there's evolutionary context as a second layer, and real human stories (Bauby) provide emotional weight. This is a full video, not a fun fact."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Human anatomy doesn't change. This will work in 6 months, 6 years, forever. No news peg needed."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Anyone with a body cares about this. The hook works even if you've never thought about neurology - it's about YOUR eyes, YOUR brain. The 'body horror lite' angle appeals broadly."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Medical explainers about locked-in syndrome exist but focus on the condition itself, not the specific 'why eyes' question. Neuroscience channels explain cranial nerves but in textbook fashion. Nobody has made the specific 'wait, why do eyes survive?' the central hook.", "missing_angle": "Framing this as a body mystery (why does YOUR body prioritize eyes?) rather than a medical condition or anatomy lesson. The irreverent 'Your Body Is Weird' angle makes this feel like discovering something surprising about yourself rather than learning about patients.", "target_audience": "Someone who just watched a movie where a dying character blinks to communicate and thought 'is that actually possible?' or someone whose grandparent was unresponsive but seemed to track them with their eyes", "opening_hook": "There's a woman in France who hasn't moved a muscle in 23 years. Can't speak. Can't breathe on her own. Can't even swallow. But she writes poetry - one blink at a time. And the weird part? The same part of her brain that controls her legs is completely destroyed. So why do her eyes still work?", "critical_success_factor": "The opening case study must be emotionally compelling without being exploitative. Jean-Dominique Bauby's story (wrote a whole book by blinking) is the perfect anchor - triumphant rather than tragic, specific rather than clinical.", "structure": "1. HOOK: The woman who writes poetry by blinking - how is this possible? 2. THE MYSTERY: Your eyes are part of your brain, so why do they survive when the brain is damaged? 3. THE REVEAL: Cranial nerves, the brainstem highway, and why evolution protected your eyes above all else 4. THE KICKER: What this tells us about consciousness - if only your eyes work, where does 'you' live?", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong counterintuitive hook that perfectly fits the channel identity ('counterintuitive things your body does'), excellent depth with multiple reveal layers, wide audience appeal, and a clear content gap in the 'irreverent body science' space.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: body_is_weird
theme: Human survival and reproduction at species scale
suggested_title: We've Never Tested If Humans Can Get Pregnant in Space
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T02:41:40.832954+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The realization that we've NEVER tested human reproduction in space despite 60 years of spaceflight is genuinely surprising. Most people assume if we're planning Mars colonies, we've figured out the basics. This contradicts that assumption hard."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "55 comments is moderate engagement. However, the post is from r/EverythingScience which skews more analytical. The topic intersects with massive public interest in SpaceX/Mars which provides ambient demand even if this specific post isn't viral."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Videos about 'what space does to your body' exist, but they focus on the obvious stuff \u2014 bone loss, radiation. The reproduction angle is underexplored in accessible, hook-driven content. No major YouTuber owns 'can humans reproduce in space?'"}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Multiple biological systems to explain, animal experiment results to reference, specific mechanisms (fluid behavior, radiation damage, gravitational cues for development), urgency of Mars timeline, proposed solutions. This easily fills 5-8 minutes."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This will remain relevant as long as space colonization is in public discourse \u2014 which is indefinitely. Not tied to any news event. The fundamental biology doesn't change."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Space + body + 'wait we don't know this?' is broadly accessible. You don't need to care about space exploration to find it weird that we've never tested something so fundamental. The 'Your Body Is Weird' angle makes it personal."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Most space content focuses on rockets, Mars missions, astronaut training. Some medical content covers 'what space does to your body' but focuses on bone density, muscle loss, vision. The reproduction angle is rarely covered, and when it is, it's clinical and dry \u2014 not framed as 'holy shit, we've never tested this.'", "missing_angle": "Framing this as a body-horror-adjacent mystery: your reproductive system was built for Earth and might literally not function anywhere else. The colonization dream has a biological asterisk nobody talks about.", "target_audience": "Someone scrolling late at night who just saw a SpaceX launch clip and thinks 'Mars colony sounds cool' \u2014 then realizes nobody has checked if the most basic requirement for a colony is even biologically possible", "opening_hook": "We're planning to put humans on Mars. We're talking about space colonies. Elon Musk wants a million people living off-Earth. But here's the thing \u2014 we have never, in 60 years of space travel, confirmed that humans can actually get pregnant in space. We don't know if it works. And there's disturbing evidence it might not.", "critical_success_factor": "The opening must land the shock that we've NEVER TESTED THIS despite planning colonies. If the viewer doesn't feel the absurdity of that gap in the first 15 seconds, the rest doesn't matter.", "structure": "1. THE SHOCK: 60 years, thousands of astronauts, zero pregnancy tests \u2014 open the curiosity gap hard. 2. THE BIOLOGY: What specifically might fail \u2014 fluid dynamics, radiation, gravitational cues for embryo development. Make it visceral. 3. THE EVIDENCE: Animal experiments and their disturbing results. What we actually know vs. what we're assuming. 4. THE URGENCY: Mars timelines are 10-15 years out. Scientists are now scrambling. What's being proposed?", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong hook that directly exploits the channel's competitive gap \u2014 this is literally about your body doing weird things (or failing to do normal things) in a specific context, framed with irreverent curiosity rather than clinical detachment.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: body_is_weird
theme: Genetics inheritance and X chromosome biology
suggested_title: Women Have a Secret Backup Chromosome That Activates When They're Sick
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T02:41:40.832954+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The idea that a chromosome you were told is 'switched off' can actually wake up and protect you is genuinely counterintuitive. Most people accept the high-school explanation and never question it. This directly contradicts that mental model."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The source post has minimal engagement (2 comments), but it's a recent scientific finding that hasn't penetrated mainstream awareness yet. The underlying questions (why do women live longer, why do diseases affect sexes differently) have massive latent interest."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Searched for 'X chromosome reactivation' and 'backup X chromosome' content \u2014 mostly academic papers and dry explainers. No one has done the 'wait, you have a secret weapon' angle in an accessible, personality-driven format."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This has multiple layers: the basic mechanism, the disease implications, the evolutionary reasoning, and connections to specific conditions people care about. The explanation is satisfying and not obvious \u2014 you couldn't guess why this happens."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is fundamental biology. The finding might get more nuanced over time, but 'women have genetic redundancy men don't' is a permanent fact about human biology."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Anyone with a body cares about this. The hook doesn't require prior interest in genetics \u2014 it's about 'something your body is secretly doing.' Fits the 'Your Body Is Weird' channel perfectly."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Most content about X-inactivation is either (1) dry academic explanations of Barr bodies and Lyon hypothesis, or (2) surface-level 'women have two X chromosomes' content that doesn't explain what that actually MEANS for health. Nobody is framing the silenced X as a 'backup system that can reactivate' \u2014 that's the counterintuitive angle.", "missing_angle": "Framing X-inactivation not as a 'silencing problem to solve' but as a 'secret weapon women didn't know they had.' The body-positive, 'your body is doing something cool' framing that fits the channel identity perfectly.", "target_audience": "Someone who just saw a headline about 'women live longer than men' and wondered if there's actually a biological reason, or anyone who remembers learning about X-inactivation in school and accepted the 'it's just turned off' explanation without questioning it.", "opening_hook": "So you know how women have two X chromosomes and men only have one? You probably learned in school that one of those X's just gets... turned off. Silenced. Useless. Except scientists just discovered it's not useless at all \u2014 it's been waiting. And when certain diseases hit, it wakes up and starts fighting back. Women have had a backup system this whole time and nobody told them.", "critical_success_factor": "The opening must land the 'you were lied to in school' framing clearly \u2014 the viewer needs to feel the contradiction between 'switched off = useless' and 'actually a backup system' immediately, or the rest of the video loses its punch.", "structure": "1. THE LIE YOU WERE TOLD: Quick recap of what school taught about X-inactivation (one X 'turns off,' becomes a Barr body, does nothing). 2. THE DISCOVERY: Scientists found the silenced X can 'escape' inactivation and produce proteins when the body needs them \u2014 especially in brain cells fighting disease. 3. WHAT THIS MEANS FOR YOU: Why women often have less severe symptoms of certain diseases, why men are more vulnerable to X-linked conditions, why female carriers don't always show symptoms. 4. THE BIGGER PICTURE: Your body has backup systems you didn't know about \u2014 this is just one example of your biology being smarter than you realized.", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong counterintuitive hook that directly fits the channel identity, excellent depth for a full explainer, clear content gap, and evergreen relevance \u2014 this is exactly what the channel should be making.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: body_is_weird
theme: Sleep/wake cycles and time perception
suggested_title: Why Your Old Alarm Tone Makes You Tired (Even at 2pm)
verdict: WORTH_MAKING
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T02:41:40.832954+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Most people have experienced this exact phenomenon but never had language for it. 'Wait, that's a real thing with a real explanation?' The specificity of iPhone radar tone makes it immediately relatable."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The original post has only 6 comments, but alarm fatigue/hatred is a universally discussed topic. The specific 'tired when hearing it randomly' angle hasn't been directly asked before in high volume, but the adjacent topic (hating alarms) has massive engagement everywhere."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Searched my knowledge \u2014 most alarm content is about 'best alarm sounds' or 'why waking up is hard.' Nobody has made 'your old alarm makes you tired at 2pm because of Pavlovian conditioning' the specific hook."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Classical conditioning is well-documented, autonomic responses are measurable, and the cortisol/arousal distinction provides a satisfying 'aha.' This isn't a thin fun fact \u2014 it's a genuine mechanism with layers."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "People will have phone alarms forever. This isn't tied to any trend or news cycle."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Anyone with a smartphone alarm will relate. This doesn't require interest in sleep science or biology \u2014 it's 'that weird thing that happens to you, explained.'"}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "There are generic 'why you hate your alarm' videos but they focus on the psychological annoyance of being woken up, not the specific phenomenon of hearing the tone OUTSIDE of waking context and feeling fatigued. Most content treats alarm hatred as emotional, not physiological.", "missing_angle": "This video treats alarm-induced fatigue as a measurable bodily response (classical conditioning of the autonomic nervous system) rather than just 'you associate it with waking up.' It's the difference between 'you don't like Mondays' and 'your cortisol spikes on Sunday night.'", "target_audience": "Someone who changed their alarm tone last month because they started 'hating' their old one, hearing this video explain exactly why that happened", "opening_hook": "If you've ever heard someone else's iPhone alarm go off \u2014 that radar sound \u2014 and felt your entire body get heavy for a second? That's not psychological. Your body has been trained like Pavlov's dog, except instead of drooling, you're getting tired. And the weirdest part? Your old alarm tone might be making your mornings harder even after you've stopped using it.", "critical_success_factor": "The scientific explanation must be airtight. If 'autonomic classical conditioning' isn't the real mechanism, the video falls apart. Needs verification that this is physiological, not just psychological association.", "structure": ["1. COLD OPEN: The phenomenon \u2014 hearing someone's radar alarm at a coffee shop and feeling instantly tired. 'That's not in your head.'", "2. THE MECHANISM: Classical conditioning of your autonomic nervous system. You're not a dog, but your nervous system is.", "3. THE TWIST: Why it feels like fatigue specifically \u2014 stress response without the actual wake-up arousal that follows.", "4. THE FIX: Rotate your alarms, use gradual wake systems, and what other stimuli you've accidentally Pavlov'd yourself to."], "verdict_reasoning": "Strong relatable hook with real scientific backing, but needs research to confirm the autonomic conditioning mechanism is as clean as described \u2014 if the science holds, this could be MAKE_NOW.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: body_is_weird
theme: Vaccines and preventive medicine controversies
suggested_title: Newborns Can't Clot Blood (And It's Supposed to Be That Way)
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T02:41:40.832954+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The detail that babies are born unable to clot blood properly is genuinely surprising. Most people assume newborns are fragile but functional. Learning they have a specific, fatal vulnerability that requires intervention creates real 'wait, what?' energy."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "70 comments on the Reddit post suggests moderate engagement. It's not viral, but vitamin K refusal is a growing trend making this timely. The signal is more about relevance than raw numbers."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Existing content is either medical PSA ('get the shot') or political commentary ('anti-vaxxers are dangerous'). Nobody owns the 'your body is weird' angle on this \u2014 explaining WHY evolution made babies this way, not just THAT you should fix it."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Multiple layers of genuine depth: biology of clotting, evolutionary theory, medical history, current resurgence, specific case studies. This could easily be 5-8 minutes without padding."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The biology is permanent. The trend of parents refusing the shot is ongoing. This isn't tied to a news cycle \u2014 it's tied to a persistent weird fact about human development."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Anyone with a body (or who might someday have a baby) has reason to care. The hook transcends 'parenting content' because it's really about 'why are humans built wrong?' \u2014 universal curiosity."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Medical explainers about vitamin K shots exist but they're either dry pediatric PSAs ('here's why you should get the shot') or political hot takes about anti-vaxxers. Nobody has framed this as 'your body has a weird design flaw' \u2014 the curiosity-driven body-horror angle that makes it scroll-stopping.", "missing_angle": "Framing vitamin K deficiency not as a vaccine debate but as a bizarre evolutionary glitch \u2014 'Why would bodies be designed to be this fragile?' \u2014 fits the channel identity perfectly. It's irreverent, it's body-focused, it's counterintuitive, and it makes you look at babies differently.", "target_audience": "A 25-year-old scrolling at midnight who thinks they understand how bodies work, suddenly realizing there's a lethal design flaw in human infants they never knew existed", "opening_hook": "Your body has 13 different proteins that help your blood clot. Newborn babies? They're born with almost none of them. One small bump to the head can cause bleeding inside the brain. And here's the weird part \u2014 this isn't a defect. Your body does this on purpose.", "critical_success_factor": "The opening must make vitamin K deficiency feel viscerally dangerous and biologically weird \u2014 not like a vaccine PSA. If it sounds like 'you should get your baby this shot,' it fails. If it sounds like 'why would evolution build babies wrong?' it works.", "structure": "1. COLD OPEN: Babies can't clot blood \u2014 here's what that means (specific, visceral) 2. THE WEIRD PART: This isn't a defect, evolution did this on purpose (evolutionary speculation) 3. THE FIX: One shot, developed in 1961, virtually eliminated the problem 4. THE COMEBACK: Why it's returning and what VKDB actually looks like", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong curiosity hook, perfect channel fit ('Your Body Is Weird' explaining an actual weird thing about bodies), clear content gap, substantial depth, and a reveal that's genuinely satisfying without being preachy.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: body_is_weird
theme: Dietary fiber and nutrition optimization
suggested_title: Your Nose Beats a Dog's (But Only for This One Thing)
verdict: WORTH_MAKING
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T02:41:40.832954+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The dog comparison creates genuine cognitive dissonance. Everyone 'knows' dogs smell better. Being told we beat them at anything smell-related forces a rethink. Not quite a 5 because it's not life-changing, but it's a strong 4."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The source post has only 17 comments and moderate engagement. However, it's from r/biology which skews technical. The general interest in 'surprising body facts' is evergreen on YouTube. Moderate signal."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Searched memory for 'humans smell better than dogs' content \u2014 this specific angle (fruit detection superiority) doesn't appear to be covered by major science channels. The reframe opportunity is open."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The evolutionary explanation is rich (primate fruit-eating history), there are additional surprising compounds to mention, and the philosophical reframe adds a satisfying 'aha' layer. Not just a fun fact."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Human biology vs animal biology is permanently interesting. No news hook, no trend dependency. This works in 5 years."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Anyone with a nose and a vague awareness that dogs are good at smelling things can engage. Doesn't require interest in nutrition, biology, or science. The dog comparison is the universal entry point."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "There's content about human vs dog senses, but it almost always frames humans as inferior across the board. Videos about smell typically focus on how bad we are compared to animals. The specific 'we beat dogs at fruit' angle appears to be unexploited.", "missing_angle": "Reframing human senses not as 'worse' but as 'differently specialized' \u2014 and using the surprising fruit-smell fact as the proof point. This is body-positive comparative biology.", "target_audience": "Someone who just finished a nature documentary about animals with incredible senses and is feeling vaguely inferior about human biology \u2014 then sees this title and thinks 'wait, we beat dogs at SOMETHING?'", "opening_hook": "Dogs can smell drugs through walls, find people buried under avalanches, and detect cancer in your blood. But hand a dog a banana and ask if it's ripe? You're actually better at that than they are. And the reason why reveals something weird about what your nose was actually designed to do.", "critical_success_factor": "The video must make the viewer feel genuinely impressed by their own biology \u2014 not just informed. The emotional beat is 'huh, my body is actually kind of cool' not 'here's a biology fact.'", "structure": "1. COLD OPEN: Dogs can do X, Y, Z with their noses. But there's one smell test where you win. (15 sec) 2. THE SURPRISE: Specific stats on isoamyl acetate detection \u2014 humans at 0.0034 ppm, dogs worse. (45 sec) 3. THE WHY: Evolutionary history of fruit-eating primates. Your nose is a fruit-ripeness detector. Dogs' noses are prey-trackers. Different tools for different jobs. (90 sec) 4. THE REFRAME: You're not a worse smeller. You're a specialist. Other examples of human smell superiority. What this means for how you experience food. (60 sec)", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong counterintuitive hook that perfectly fits the channel's 'Your Body Is Weird' identity and exploits the competitive gap (curiosity-driven body facts most people don't know). Not MAKE_NOW because demand signal is moderate and it's not a stop-everything hook, but it's a solid concept that should be queued.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: body_is_weird
theme: Diet and appetite regulation struggles
suggested_title: Why Eating Breakfast Makes You Hungrier
verdict: WORTH_MAKING
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T02:41:40.832954+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "This is genuinely counterintuitive. Most people have experienced it but never questioned it. The contradiction between 'eat to not be hungry' and 'eating made me hungrier' is immediately compelling. Not quite a 5 because some people are familiar with insulin response from fitness content."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The breakfast post has 69 comments with 0.996 score. The healthy eating/appetite post has 22 comments at 0.862. Multiple posts in the cluster touch on this same paradox (constantly hungry, healthy eating increasing appetite). Clear evidence people are confused and seeking answers."}, "content_gap": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "Intermittent fasting content is saturated. However, 'why eating makes you hungrier' as a body-weird angle rather than a diet-hack angle is less common. The 'Your Body Is Weird' framing is the differentiation. Some risk of overlap with existing IF explainers."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Strong depth. Insulin mechanism, blood sugar rollercoaster, historical context of breakfast marketing, protein vs carb differences, glycemic index basics - there are multiple layers to explore. The reveal is satisfying and takes real explanation."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Human physiology doesn't change. The breakfast paradox will confuse people forever. No news cycle dependency. This could be posted in 2027 and still work."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Almost everyone eats breakfast (or has debated whether to). The experience of being hungry after eating is universal. You don't need to care about fitness or nutrition to find this relatable. Slight limitation: people deep into fitness already know this."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "There's intermittent fasting content everywhere, but it's usually framed as 'here's a diet hack' rather than 'here's why your body does this weird thing.' Most breakfast content is either pro-breakfast ('most important meal!') or anti-breakfast ('skip it to lose weight!') but neither explains the MECHANISM of why eating makes you hungrier.", "missing_angle": "This video starts with the weird body experience first, not the diet advice. It validates something viewers have noticed but never understood, then explains the physiology in a way that makes them feel smarter, not lectured. It's 'Your Body Is Weird' not 'Here's What You Should Eat.'", "target_audience": "Someone standing in their kitchen at 10am absolutely starving despite eating a bowl of oatmeal two hours ago, thinking 'what is wrong with me?' They've been told breakfast is non-negotiable but their body keeps contradicting the advice.", "opening_hook": "Here's something weird your body does that nobody talks about. You wake up, eat a healthy breakfast like you're supposed to, and two hours later you're hungrier than if you'd eaten nothing at all. You're not imagining this. And once you understand why, you'll never think about breakfast the same way again.", "critical_success_factor": "The opening must immediately validate the viewer's experience before explaining anything. If it starts with 'insulin' or 'blood sugar' it's a health lecture. If it starts with 'you've noticed you're hungrier after eating, right? That's not in your head' - now they're hooked because you're describing their life.", "structure": "1) THE PARADOX: Open with the experience - you eat breakfast and you're starving by 10am, but skip it and you're fine. What's going on? 2) THE MECHANISM: Insulin response, blood sugar crash, the rollercoaster your body goes on. Explain why eating triggers more hunger. 3) THE HISTORY: 'Most important meal' was invented by cereal companies - brief detour into how this myth got planted. 4) THE SOLUTION: What actually works if you want to eat breakfast without the crash - protein, fats, low glycemic foods vs the typical carb-heavy breakfast.", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong counterintuitive hook that fits 'Your Body Is Weird' perfectly, with solid depth and universal relatability, but the content gap isn't quite wide enough for MAKE_NOW given existing IF/insulin content in the health space.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: body_is_weird
theme: Body parts identification and unexplained anatomical features
suggested_title: Your Glasses Are Slowly Reshaping Your Skull
verdict: WORTH_MAKING
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T02:41:40.832954+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The immediate physical check viewers can do on their own bodies makes this viscerally engaging. 'Your glasses are reshaping your skull' is counterintuitive enough to stop scrolling, and the personal verification element amplifies it."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The original post has 9 comments \u2014 moderate engagement. But the topic touches everyone who wears glasses (roughly 75% of adults use some vision correction), suggesting latent demand even if this specific framing hasn't gone viral."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Wolff's Law content exists but is typically clinical or academic. The 'your glasses are reshaping your skull' angle appears to be unoccupied territory. No obvious YouTube videos own this specific hook."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Wolff's Law is genuinely fascinating science that takes time to explain properly. Multiple layers available: the initial phenomenon, the mechanism, other examples throughout the body, reassurance about safety. This is a 4-5 minute video minimum."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Human anatomy doesn't change. Glasses have existed for 700 years and aren't going anywhere. This will be just as relevant in 5 years."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Most adults wear glasses or know someone who does. The hook works even for non-glasses-wearers because it raises the broader question: what else is reshaping my skeleton? The 'your body is weird' angle is universally accessible."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "There's content about Wolff's Law in academic/medical contexts and content about glasses fitting, but nothing that connects the specific observation 'my skull has ridges where my glasses sit' to the broader science of bone remodeling. The personal, slightly alarming entry point is missing.", "missing_angle": "Starting with a specific, relatable personal observation that viewers can immediately verify on their own bodies, then expanding into the genuinely fascinating science of how your skeleton is constantly reshaping itself around your habits", "target_audience": "Someone who wears glasses daily, sitting at their desk, who just reflexively touched the back of their ears and is now genuinely curious whether they've been slowly deforming their own skull for the past decade", "opening_hook": "Feel the back of your ears right now. If you wear glasses, you might notice something weird \u2014 little ridges or indentations in your skull. One Redditor posted about this and asked: did my glasses do this? And the answer is more unsettling than you'd think.", "critical_success_factor": "The opening must get viewers to physically touch the back of their ears within the first 15 seconds \u2014 that tactile participation creates investment in the answer", "structure": "1. THE HOOK: Feel the back of your ears \u2014 if you wear glasses, you might find ridges. A Redditor asked: did my glasses do this? 2. THE SCIENCE: Introduce Wolff's Law \u2014 bone remodels under sustained pressure. This is how braces work. The skull behind your ears is thin and susceptible. 3. THE EXPANSION: Other ways your habits reshape your skeleton \u2014 sleeping position, phone holding posture, heavy bags on one shoulder. Your body is constantly adapting. 4. THE REASSURANCE: This isn't dangerous \u2014 it's just your body being weirdly efficient. The 'damage' is purely cosmetic and shows how adaptive human biology really is.", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong hook with personal verification element, solid science to explain, perfect fit for 'Your Body Is Weird' channel identity \u2014 but needs research to confirm the bone remodeling claim is scientifically accurate for this specific application before committing.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: body_is_weird
theme: Hand and finger anatomy variations
suggested_title: Your Thumbs Are Missing a Bone
verdict: WORTH_MAKING
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T02:41:40.832954+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The 'count your own fingers right now' hook is strong. Most people have genuinely never noticed this asymmetry in their own bodies. It's not a 5 because it's not quite 'I literally cannot scroll past this' \u2014 it's more 'huh, that's actually really interesting.'"}, "demand_signal": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The source post is from a med student with modest engagement (7 comments). However, the underlying curiosity about 'why is my body like this' is everywhere in this cluster \u2014 multiple posts about finger/hand anatomy questions. The demand is implicit rather than explicit."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "No one owns this specific hook in short-form. Anatomy content exists but it's either clinical (for students) or about rare conditions (extra fingers, etc.). The 'your normal body has this weird thing you never noticed' angle is underserved."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Strong depth. The evolutionary explanation is genuinely satisfying (addition not subtraction), there are interesting exceptions (triphalangeal thumb), and it connects to broader body weirdness (pinky toe evolution). This is not a one-liner."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Human anatomy doesn't change. This will be just as interesting in 5 years as it is today. Zero news dependency."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Everyone has thumbs. Everyone can immediately verify this on their own body. You don't need any prior interest in anatomy \u2014 the hook works on pure 'wait, I never noticed that about myself.'"}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Medical anatomy videos exist but they're dry explanations for students, not 'holy crap I never noticed this about my own body' content. No one has framed this as a 'your body is lying to you' revelation.", "missing_angle": "Framing it as 'you've been looking at your hands your whole life and missed this' \u2014 making it personal and immediate rather than clinical. Plus the counterintuitive flip: you think you're missing something, but actually your other fingers GAINED something.", "target_audience": "Someone looking at their hand right now, counting finger segments for the first time in their life, suddenly realizing they never questioned why their thumb looks different.", "opening_hook": "Count the segments on your index finger. Three, right? Now count your thumb. Two. Your thumb is literally missing a bone. And here's the weird part \u2014 your big toe is too. Why would evolution specifically delete a bone from just these two digits?", "critical_success_factor": "The opening must get viewers to physically look at their own hands and count \u2014 that moment of 'holy crap, he's right, I never noticed this' is what makes the video land. If the revelation doesn't hit in the first 15 seconds, nothing else matters.", "structure": "1. THE REVELATION (0:00-0:30): Count your fingers, discover the asymmetry, pose the mystery. 2. THE WRONG ASSUMPTION (0:30-1:30): Your brain assumes something is missing \u2014 but you've got it backwards. 3. THE EVOLUTIONARY FLIP (1:30-3:00): The middle phalanx was ADDED to other fingers, not removed from thumbs. Why strength beats flexibility for these specific digits. 4. THE WEIRD EXCEPTIONS (3:00-4:00): Triphalangeal thumb exists \u2014 and it actually causes grip problems. Plus: your pinky toe is evolving to lose bones right now.", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong hook with good depth and perfect channel fit for 'Your Body Is Weird' \u2014 a counterintuitive anatomical fact that viewers can verify on their own bodies immediately. Not quite MAKE_NOW because the curiosity is more 'that's genuinely interesting' than 'I literally cannot scroll past this.'", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: body_is_weird
theme: Alcohol and body effects
suggested_title: Why Alcohol Withdrawal Gets Worse After the Alcohol Is Gone
verdict: WORTH_MAKING
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T02:41:40.832954+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The paradox is genuinely counterintuitive \u2014 alcohol out in 1 day, worst symptoms at day 3. Most people assume withdrawal = drug leaving body. This breaks that mental model."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The Reddit post only has 7 comments, but it's in r/biology asking a sophisticated question. The cluster overall shows strong alcohol-related engagement (2018 comments on the '44% never drank' post). Alcohol content performs, and this is a fresh angle."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Medical content explains DTs but doesn't lead with the paradox. Nobody has made 'why is the timing backwards' the hook. This is an unclaimed angle."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "GABA receptor downregulation, neural adaptation timelines, comparison to other drug withdrawals \u2014 there's substantial neuroscience here that takes real time to explain properly. Not a fun fact."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Human biology doesn't change. This will be just as true and just as surprising in 5 years."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "Anyone curious about 'body is weird' stuff will watch, but it's somewhat niche to people interested in alcohol/addiction. However, the paradox framing ('wait, that math doesn't work') can pull in general curiosity viewers."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Medical explainers exist but they're clinical and aimed at healthcare workers. Addiction recovery content focuses on support, not mechanism. Nobody has made this specific paradox the hook \u2014 'why does it get worse after the drug is gone' \u2014 framed for a curious non-medical audience.", "missing_angle": "Framing the delayed timeline as a genuine biological mystery rather than just a medical fact. The 'wait, that doesn't make sense' entry point is what's missing from existing content.", "target_audience": "Someone who's ever wondered why alcohol withdrawal can kill you but heroin withdrawal 'just' makes you miserable \u2014 or anyone who's seen a movie reference 'the shakes' and never understood the actual biology", "opening_hook": "Alcohol leaves your bloodstream in about 20 hours. So why do people die from withdrawal on day three \u2014 when there hasn't been a drop of alcohol in their body for over 48 hours? Your brain is reacting to something. But it's not the missing alcohol.", "critical_success_factor": "The paradox must land in the first 10 seconds \u2014 viewer must genuinely feel 'wait, that doesn't add up' before any explanation begins. If the setup feels like a lecture instead of a mystery, it fails.", "structure": "1) THE PARADOX: Alcohol clears in <24hrs, worst symptoms at 72hrs. 2) HOW YOUR BRAIN ADAPTS: GABA receptors and the brain's 'volume knob' metaphor. 3) THE DELAYED CRASH: Why neural destabilization takes days, not hours. 4) WHY THIS MAKES ALCOHOL SPECIAL: Comparison to other withdrawals, why doctors monitor for days.", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong paradox hook with genuine depth, perfect fit for 'Your Body Is Weird' identity, but demand signal from the specific post is modest \u2014 worth making but not urgent.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: body_is_weird
theme: Mouth/teeth weird sensations and reflexes
suggested_title: Your Saliva Changes the Instant You Get Cut
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T02:41:40.832954+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "This is a genuine 'wait, that happens to me too\u2014what IS that?' moment. Most people have experienced it but never articulated it. The gap between 'my mouth tastes different' and 'how does my mouth know I'm bleeding' is compelling and unresolvable without explanation."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The post has 18 comments and 0.968 score, showing solid engagement. It's not viral-level, but the specificity of engagement (people confirming 'yes, this happens to me') is more valuable than volume. Cross-source count of 1 is low, but this is a niche observation that wouldn't trend broadly."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "No one has made a video specifically about this phenomenon. Saliva content exists, wound healing content exists, but the specific 'your saliva changes instantly when you're cut' angle is untouched. This is a genuine gap."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The explanation requires understanding autonomic nervous system, cellular signaling, evolutionary biology of wound-licking, and the broader concept of unconscious body protocols. This isn't a one-sentence answer\u2014it's a genuine exploration with multiple revelatory layers."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Human biology doesn't change. This will be just as relevant in 5 years. No news peg, no trend dependency."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Everyone has gotten a cut. Everyone has a mouth. You don't need any specialized interest to find this compelling\u2014it's universal human experience made strange."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "There are videos about wound healing, saliva composition, and the autonomic nervous system, but nothing that starts from this specific observable phenomenon. Most content is clinical ('what is saliva made of') rather than experiential ('why does THIS weird thing happen to YOU').", "missing_angle": "Starting from a relatable micro-experience that viewers have had but never questioned, then revealing the sophisticated emergency system running beneath conscious awareness. It's body horror meets body appreciation\u2014your meat suit is running protocols you didn't authorize.", "target_audience": "Someone who just got a papercut at their desk, noticed their mouth tasted weird, and thought 'huh, that's strange' for half a second before moving on\u2014this video validates that half-second and turns it into genuine understanding", "opening_hook": "Next time you get a papercut, pay attention to your mouth. Before you feel the sting, before you see blood, your saliva will change. It gets thicker, metallic, almost... ready. Your mouth knew you were injured before you did. How?", "critical_success_factor": "The opening must describe the experience so precisely that viewers have the 'holy shit, that DOES happen to me' recognition moment. If the description is too vague, the hook fails. Nail the sensory specificity.", "structure": "1. THE RECOGNITION (30s): Describe the experience so specifically that viewers think 'wait, that DOES happen to me'\u2014the metallic taste, the thickness change, happening before pain registers. 2. THE MYSTERY (45s): Why is this strange? Your mouth has no way of knowing your finger is cut. Pain signals haven't reached your brain yet. So what's happening? 3. THE REVEAL (90s): Your body's emergency broadcast system\u2014cellular signaling, autonomic response, why saliva specifically changes (antimicrobial proteins, wound-sealing preparation, the evolutionary logic of wound-licking). 4. THE BIGGER PICTURE (45s): Other examples of your body reacting before you're aware\u2014the broader revelation that you're running on autopilot more than you think.", "verdict_reasoning": "This is a perfect 'Your Body Is Weird' topic: a universal but unexamined micro-experience that reveals your body is running sophisticated systems you're not aware of\u2014counterintuitive, specific, personally relatable, and genuinely surprising.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: body_is_weird
theme: Surprising origin stories and historical miscellany
suggested_title: Columbus Should Have Starved to Death in the Ocean
verdict: SKIP
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T02:41:40.832954+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The inversion of 'brilliant navigator' to 'should have died' is genuinely surprising to most people. It contradicts grade-school history."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "753 comments on the Reddit post \u2014 high engagement. Columbus is a culturally relevant figure people have opinions about."}, "content_gap": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "Some debunking content exists, but the specific 'he would have starved' angle with visceral stakes is underexplored in short-form."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Multiple layers of explanation available: the math, the politics, the geography, the luck. Not a one-sentence fact."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Historical content doesn't decay. Columbus will remain culturally relevant."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Anyone who went to school in the Americas has heard about Columbus. Universal recognition."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "There's educational content about Columbus's errors, but it's typically framed academically ('Columbus underestimated the distance') rather than viscerally ('Columbus should be dead'). The life-or-death framing is underdeveloped in existing content.", "missing_angle": "Framing Columbus's voyage as a near-death miscalculation that only succeeded by geographic accident \u2014 making the 'discovery' feel less like achievement and more like survival luck.", "target_audience": "Someone who vaguely remembers learning about Columbus in school and has never questioned the 'brave explorer' narrative, now scrolling and suddenly realizing the whole story was different than they thought.", "opening_hook": "Christopher Columbus didn't discover America. America discovered him \u2014 because without it, he'd be a skeleton at the bottom of the Atlantic. His math said Asia was 2,400 miles away. It's actually 12,000. He packed enough food for the trip he imagined, not the trip that existed.", "critical_success_factor": "N/A \u2014 does not fit channel", "structure": "N/A \u2014 does not fit channel", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong hook, good depth, high demand \u2014 but this is a history/navigation topic with zero connection to 'Your Body Is Weird.' This would be excellent for a general trivia or history channel, but it doesn't fit this channel's identity at all. Channel-fit score: 1/5.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: body_is_weird
theme: Celebrity facts and Epstein-related content
suggested_title: The Nazi Leader Who Killed Himself When He Found Out He Was Jewish
verdict: NEEDS_RESEARCH
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T02:41:40.832954+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "A Nazi leader secretly being Jewish and killing himself when exposed is genuinely shocking. The 'wait what' is strong. However, it requires reframing to fit the channel - it's not obviously a 'body' topic until you make it about brain mechanisms."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "848 comments on the TIL post shows high engagement. The story itself is compelling. However, demand for 'Your Body Is Weird' framing specifically is unproven."}, "content_gap": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The Dan Burros story has been covered in documentaries and articles. The gap is in framing it as neuroscience/psychology that applies to the viewer's own brain. That angle is less common."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Compartmentalization, cognitive dissonance, and the neuroscience of self-deception are rich topics. The story is a hook into a substantial explanation. Could easily fill 4-6 minutes."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Historical story + timeless brain mechanism = permanently relevant. Not tied to any news cycle."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The hook is dramatic but requires interest in psychology/neuroscience. Someone purely looking for body-weird content (physical oddities) might not click. The 'Nazi' angle might also deter some viewers."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Psychology channels have covered cognitive dissonance but rarely with such a dramatic specific example. The Dan Burros story exists in documentary form but isn't framed as 'this is what YOUR brain does too.'", "missing_angle": "Connecting an extreme historical case to the everyday experience of holding contradictory beliefs - making viewers realize they use the same brain mechanism (just to a lesser degree)", "target_audience": "Someone who just caught themselves saying one thing and doing another, and wondered 'why am I like this?'", "opening_hook": "In 1965, a man read a newspaper article about himself and immediately shot himself in the head. The article revealed something about his own identity that he'd somehow hidden from himself for years. And the thing your brain does to make this possible? You've probably done a version of it today.", "critical_success_factor": "The transition from 'weird historical story' to 'this is what YOUR brain does' must happen early and feel earned. If viewers think it's just a history video, they'll bounce. The channel promise is 'your body is weird' - the video must deliver on that by making compartmentalization feel personal and universal.", "structure": "1) THE STORY: Dan Burros rises to #3 in American Nazi Party while being Jewish. The NYT exposure. His immediate suicide. (90 seconds) 2) THE MECHANISM: What is compartmentalization? How does your brain literally wall off contradictory information? (90 seconds) 3) YOU DO THIS TOO: Everyday examples - holding contradictory beliefs, the smoker who knows smoking kills, the cheater who loves their partner. This is the same mechanism on a smaller scale. (60 seconds) 4) WHY EXPOSURE BREAKS IT: What happens neurologically when compartments collide. Why some people's brains choose destruction over integration. (60 seconds)", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong hook with genuine depth, but requires careful verification of the psychology claims and creative reframing to fit 'Your Body Is Weird' channel identity - this is really a brain/psychology story, not a body story.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: body_is_weird
theme: Technology privacy and recognition failures
suggested_title: Your Face Has a Twin You've Never Met
verdict: NEEDS_RESEARCH
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T02:41:40.832954+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The double-failure detail (replacement phone, same problem) adds genuine mystery. 'Two random coworkers can unlock each other's phones' is counterintuitive enough to stop scrolling."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "737 comments on the TIL post indicates strong engagement. The specific story is being discussed, not just the general theme."}, "content_gap": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "Face ID content exists, doppelganger content exists, but the body-focused angle ('your face isn't unique') is less saturated. Some overlap with existing explainers."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Multiple layers: how Face ID works, facial geometry math, doppelganger research, twin studies, law enforcement implications. Can easily fill 4-6 minutes."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The 2017 story is the hook, but the underlying content (facial uniqueness, biometric limits) is timeless. Won't decay."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Anyone with a phone that uses face unlock is the audience. The 'do I have a face twin?' question is universally intriguing."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Videos exist about Face ID security, iPhone twins, and doppelgangers separately. Most Face ID content is product review or security-focused ('can you fool Face ID with a photo?'). The body-angle \u2014 'your face might not be as unique as you think' \u2014 is underexplored.", "missing_angle": "Reframing a tech story as a body story. Not 'Apple's Face ID has flaws' but 'Your face has mathematical twins you've never met.'", "target_audience": "Someone unlocking their phone with their face right now, who's never questioned whether that geometry is actually unique to them", "opening_hook": "In 2017, a woman in China bought a brand new iPhone X. A week later, her coworker picked it up, looked at it \u2014 and it unlocked. She returned it. Got a replacement. Same coworker. Same unlock. Apple gave her a refund. They never explained why.", "critical_success_factor": "Must feel like a video about YOUR face, not about Apple's technology. The viewer should walk away thinking about their own facial geometry, not about iPhone security flaws.", "structure": "1. THE INCIDENT: The Chinese coworker story \u2014 hook with the double-failure mystery. 2. HOW YOUR FACE BECOMES MATH: Face ID's 30,000 dots, the 14 key ratios, what 'facial geometry' actually means. 3. THE TWIN PROBLEM: Doppelganger research, identical twin Face ID failures, the statistical reality of facial overlap. 4. THE UNCOMFORTABLE IMPLICATION: If your face isn't unique enough for a phone, what about police facial recognition? Close on: somewhere out there, your face twin exists.", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong hook with good depth potential, but requires reframing from tech-story to body-story to fit 'Your Body Is Weird' \u2014 and needs verification that the facial geometry science holds up to the claims we'd make.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: body_is_weird
theme: Chronic neurological symptoms and diagnostic uncertainty
suggested_title: The Woman Whose Reality Came Back After One Night
verdict: WORTH_MAKING
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T02:41:40.832954+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Party drug accidentally cures 8-year psychiatric condition is genuinely counterintuitive. You cannot hear that and not want to know how. Not a 5 because derealization itself is niche - some viewers won't know what it is."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 2, "reasoning": "Low Reddit engagement (3 comments, 0.994 score). However, psychedelics-as-medicine is a massive trending topic across platforms, and 'drugs doing unexpected things to your brain' performs well. The specific post is weak; the broader interest is strong."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Clinical derealization content exists. MDMA therapy content exists. But the specific 'accidental party cure' angle as a narrative entry point is not owned by anyone. This is a fresh framing."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Multiple layers: the condition, the mechanism, the broader research context, the philosophical implications of reality being brain-constructed. Could easily fill 4-6 minutes."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This story will work as long as people have brains. Not tied to any news cycle. The underlying neuroscience and the mystery of consciousness are permanent topics."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "Anyone who's ever felt 'not quite real' or dissociated will connect. But derealization is more niche than, say, sleep or memory. The drug angle broadens it - people are curious about what party drugs actually do to brains."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Plenty of 'what is derealization' explainers exist from medical channels. Some coverage of MDMA therapy for PTSD. But NO video I can find specifically uses this accidental-cure-at-a-party framing as the entry point. The existing content is clinical; this is a story.", "missing_angle": "Every existing video on derealization or MDMA therapy approaches it from a clinical angle: 'here's a condition, here's a treatment.' This video approaches it from 'here's a woman at a party who accidentally stumbled onto what researchers are spending millions trying to understand.' The irreverence matches the channel - this isn't a medical lecture, it's a 'your brain is weird and here's proof.'", "target_audience": "Someone scrolling at 1am who has ever felt 'off' or disconnected from reality - maybe after stress, maybe after a weird sleep, maybe just randomly - and wondered 'is something wrong with me?' They click because the hook is wild, they stay because they learn their brain has a dissociation switch.", "opening_hook": "Imagine waking up one day at 13 and everything looks fake. Your hands don't feel like yours. Your mom's face looks like a stranger's. That was her life. For eight years. Then she tried ecstasy once, and the next morning - just gone. Eight years of unreality, fixed overnight by a drug she took to party. What the hell happened?", "critical_success_factor": "The first 30 seconds MUST make viewers understand what derealization feels like - not clinically, but viscerally. If they don't feel the horror of living in unreality for 8 years, the ecstasy reveal has no weight. Use concrete details: looking in a mirror and not recognizing yourself, your own hands looking like props, conversations feeling scripted.", "structure": "1. THE STORY: Set up the 8 years of unreality, what derealization feels like, why nothing worked. 2. THE NIGHT: She takes ecstasy at a party. Next morning - it's gone. 3. THE SCIENCE: What MDMA actually does to serotonin and brain connectivity. Why this might have 'reset' her dissociation loop. 4. THE BIGGER PICTURE: This accidental discovery is now being studied in clinical trials. What it reveals about how fragile and constructible 'reality' is.", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong counterintuitive hook with genuine depth and a fresh angle, but low original demand signal and somewhat niche condition require the execution to carry it - not an undeniable 'must-click' for general audiences.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: body_is_weird
theme: Primate cognition and the evolution of imagination
suggested_title: An Ape Just Had an Imaginary Tea Party
verdict: NEEDS_RESEARCH
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T02:41:40.832954+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The image of an ape having an imaginary tea party is genuinely arresting. Most people cannot explain how pretend play is possible without human-level consciousness. Strong 'wait, what?' but not quite a 5 because some viewers will shrug and say 'apes are smart, we knew that.'"}, "demand_signal": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "Multiple posts across subreddits (7+ posts about bonobo imagination), but engagement is modest\u2014mostly 0-7 comments. The topic is getting coverage but not viral traction. Cross-source count is only 1."}, "content_gap": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "Bonobo intelligence content exists. The 'tea party' angle specifically hasn't been exploited as a hook, but the general topic of animal imagination has been covered by science communicators."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The core reveal is satisfying but somewhat brief. 'Imagination evolved before humans' can be said in 20 seconds. Adding the 'recursive imagination' distinction helps, but this is closer to a 90-second short than a 5-minute explainer without significant padding."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The Kanzi research is recent news, but the underlying question\u2014what makes human cognition unique?\u2014is permanently interesting. The hook doesn't depend on news cycle timing."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Anyone who's ever wondered 'are animals conscious?' or 'what makes humans special?' would click. The tea party image is universally accessible\u2014you don't need prior interest in primatology."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Science channels have covered bonobo intelligence broadly. Nature documentaries show primate tool use. But most content frames this as 'wow, apes are smart' rather than the specific 'wait, imagination isn't uniquely human?' angle. The tea party visual is underutilized.", "missing_angle": "The specific 'tea party' image as the hook, plus the reframe that imagination isn't what separates us\u2014it's what we DO with imagination that's different.", "target_audience": "Someone watching animal videos at 11pm who pauses on a clip of an ape doing something unexpectedly human-like and thinks 'wait, do they actually understand?'", "opening_hook": "A bonobo named Kanzi just sat down for tea. He lifted an invisible cup. Tilted it toward his mouth. Swallowed. Then offered some to his human researcher. There was no tea. There was no cup. Kanzi was pretending\u2014and that shouldn't be possible.", "critical_success_factor": "The video must find a strong 'your body' angle\u2014perhaps focusing on what physically happens in the human brain during imagination and showing that bonobos have the same neural architecture. Without that reframe, this is a great video for a general science channel but wrong for 'Your Body Is Weird.'", "structure": ["1. THE TEA PARTY (0:00-0:30): Open with Kanzi's imaginary tea party. Establish the 'wait, that shouldn't be possible' moment.", "2. WHY THIS BREAKS YOUR BRAIN (0:30-1:30): Explain why pretend play requires imagination\u2014creating mental representations of things that don't exist. We assumed this was uniquely human.", "3. THE ANCIENT ORIGIN (1:30-2:30): Reveal that imagination evolved 6-9 million years ago. Explain the shared cognitive architecture between human and bonobo brains.", "4. WHAT ACTUALLY MAKES US DIFFERENT (2:30-3:30): The twist\u2014it's not imagination itself but recursive, shareable, combinable imagination. Kanzi imagines tea. Humans imagine tea parties on Mars."], "verdict_reasoning": "Strong hook but poor channel fit\u2014this is about primate cognition, not 'your body is weird.' Would need significant reframing to connect bonobo imagination to human brain/body mechanisms to work for THIS channel.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: body_is_weird
theme: Anatomy education and medical school study strategies
suggested_title: Your Doctor Forgot 90% of Anatomy Class (And That's the Point)
verdict: WORTH_MAKING
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T02:41:40.832954+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The hook 'doctors forget most of anatomy' is mildly surprising but not jaw-dropping. Most people vaguely suspect doctors don't remember everything. It's interesting but not 'stop scrolling immediately' level."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The source post has 24 comments, showing engaged discussion. But this is medical student insider content \u2014 the demand signal is strong within that niche, less clear for general audiences wondering about their own doctors."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Patient-facing content explaining why doctor forgetfulness is actually fine is rare. Most content is either 'med students complaining' or 'study tips.' The reassurance angle is underserved."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The cognitive scaffold concept is interesting but not extraordinarily deep. It can sustain 3-4 minutes but might feel stretched at 8. One main reveal with one supporting layer."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Human memory, medical education, and patient trust are permanent topics. This will be relevant forever."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "Anyone who's been to a doctor can relate, but the hook isn't as viscerally universal as 'your body does this weird thing.' It requires some interest in medical education to fully engage."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "There's plenty of 'how to study anatomy' content for med students, and some 'what doctors wish patients knew' content. But nothing specifically addresses the counterintuitive truth that forgetting is designed into medical education from the patient's reassurance angle.", "missing_angle": "Framing forgetting as a feature (not a bug) of medical education, told from the patient's perspective \u2014 'here's why you should trust your doctor even though they forgot your muscle names'", "target_audience": "Someone who just left a doctor's appointment feeling slightly unsettled that the doctor had to look something up, now reassured that the lookup IS the expertise", "opening_hook": "Your doctor spent years memorizing 800 pages of anatomy. The location of every nerve, every tiny muscle, every bone projection. Their professors watched them do it. And then told them: 'You're going to forget most of this.' They weren't wrong. So what's actually going on in a doctor's brain when they're examining you?", "critical_success_factor": "The video must make viewers feel RELIEVED and smarter, not anxious about their doctor's competence. The tone has to be 'here's a cool thing about how expertise works' not 'doctors are winging it.'", "structure": "1. THE CONTRADICTION: Your doctor memorized 800 pages of anatomy, and their teachers told them they'd forget it (30 sec) 2. WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS: The forgetting curve and what medical schools know about it (60 sec) 3. THE SCAFFOLD REVEAL: Why this isn't a bug \u2014 it's how expert pattern recognition forms (90 sec) 4. WHAT DOCTORS DO REMEMBER: The critical landmarks vs. trivia distinction, and why your doctor looking something up is good medicine (60 sec)", "verdict_reasoning": "The hook is moderately counterintuitive with good evergreen potential and a genuine content gap, but curiosity intensity is a 3 \u2014 it's interesting rather than unmissable. Fits the channel's 'body weirdness' identity tangentially.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: body_is_weird
theme: Animal behavior and cognition
suggested_title: Why Your Brain Forces You to Pet Soft Things
verdict: NEEDS_RESEARCH
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T02:41:40.832954+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The 'petting is dominance' angle is mildly counterintuitive but not jaw-dropping. Most people would find it interesting, not unmissable. The hook needs to be sharper \u2014 'your hand moves before you decide' is more visceral than 'petting is grooming.'"}, "demand_signal": {"score": 2, "reasoning": "The source post has only 7 comments and a score of 0.83. This is low engagement. The question is being asked but not virally. No cross-source signal."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The specific angle of 'petting as involuntary dominance behavior' doesn't appear to be owned by anyone. Plenty of 'why petting feels good' content exists, but not this unsettling reframe."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "There's enough to explore (primate behavior, neuroscience, domestication) but the core claim needs verification. If the grooming-dominance link is solid science, this has depth. If it's speculative evolutionary psychology, it's thin."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "People will pet animals forever. This is permanently relevant."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Almost everyone pets animals. The hook works for anyone who has ever touched a dog or cat, which is most people."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Videos exist about 'why do we like petting animals' but they focus on oxytocin release and the benefits of pet ownership \u2014 feel-good content. Nothing frames petting as an involuntary dominance behavior your body runs without conscious input.", "missing_angle": "Reframing an automatic, feel-good behavior (petting) as something slightly unsettling \u2014 your body is running ancient social hierarchy software and you never consented to it. This is the 'your body is weird' angle: the weirdness of watching yourself perform behaviors you didn't consciously choose.", "target_audience": "Someone absentmindedly petting their cat while scrolling, who suddenly becomes aware of the motion of their own hand and thinks 'wait, why AM I doing this?'", "opening_hook": "You see a fluffy dog. Your hand reaches out before you even decide to. That's not affection \u2014 that's a 30-million-year-old dominance ritual your body runs without asking you. And your pets? They know exactly what you're saying.", "critical_success_factor": "The scientific backing must be solid. If the grooming-dominance-petting connection is real evolutionary biology, this works. If it's pop-evo-psych speculation, the video will feel like clickbait that doesn't deliver.", "structure": "1) Cold open: your hand reaches for soft fur before you decide \u2014 what's controlling your body? 2) The primate grooming connection: what grooming actually meant in primate societies (hierarchy, not hygiene) 3) How domestication hijacked the program: why your brain runs this on pets 4) The weird part: your pet is reading the signal correctly \u2014 they know you're asserting something", "verdict_reasoning": "The 'petting as dominance ritual' angle is the only hook in this cluster that fits the channel, but the Reddit post is a question, not a confirmed fact \u2014 needs scientific verification before committing.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: body_is_weird
theme: Anatomical variations and structural oddities of the human body
suggested_title: Your Skull Has Seams (And You Can Feel Them)
verdict: WORTH_MAKING
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T02:41:40.832954+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "Mildly counterintuitive - most people vaguely know skulls have multiple bones but haven't connected this to 'I can feel the seams.' The hook is more 'huh, that's interesting' than 'wait, WHAT?' It's not a 5 because once you hear 'skulls fuse from multiple bones' the mystery is mostly resolved."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 2, "reasoning": "The source post has very low engagement (score 0.948, only 4 comments) and is from a niche anatomy subreddit. There's no evidence of broad public interest. The question comes from personal concern, not viral curiosity."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "I haven't seen a 'you can feel your skull seams' video that makes this relatable and personal. Medical content exists but it's clinical, not curiosity-driven. The 'Your Body Is Weird' irreverent angle could own this."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Good depth - fetal skull development, the birth canal connection, suture fusion timeline, why some people feel them more than others, when it IS a concern vs isn't. Can easily fill 3-4 minutes with interesting layers."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Completely timeless. Human skulls will always have sutures. People will always discover weird bumps on their heads and wonder what's going on."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "Anyone with a skull can relate, but you need to have had the experience of feeling something weird on your head to really connect. More relatable than bodybuilding pec striations, less universal than 'why do we yawn.'"}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Medical explainers about cranial sutures exist but are either aimed at parents worried about infant fontanelles or are dry anatomy lectures. Nobody has made a 'hey, you can feel your skull seams and here's why' video that normalizes the experience of discovering this as an adult.", "missing_angle": "The personal discovery framing - starting from 'you touched your head and felt something weird' rather than 'here's skull anatomy.' Making the viewer the protagonist who just made a discovery about their own body.", "target_audience": "Someone in their 20s who just discovered a weird ridge or bump on their skull while showering, frantically Googled 'dent in skull normal,' and now needs to understand what they're feeling", "opening_hook": "Run your fingers along the top of your head, from your forehead toward the back. Feel anything weird? A ridge? A dent? That's not damage - that's where your skull bones fused together. And the reason some people can feel theirs and others can't is actually kind of unsettling.", "critical_success_factor": "The opening must make people actually touch their heads and feel something - if viewers don't have a physical 'wait, I feel that too' moment in the first 15 seconds, the video loses its power.", "structure": "1. COLD OPEN: 'Run your fingers over your skull - feel that ridge?' (10 sec) 2. THE WEIRD TRUTH: Your skull is puzzle pieces that fused together, not one bone (45 sec) 3. WHY SOME PEOPLE CAN FEEL THEIRS: Variations in fusion, bone thickness at suture lines (60 sec) 4. SHOULD YOU BE WORRIED: Almost certainly no, but here's when to actually care (45 sec)", "verdict_reasoning": "Decent hook with good depth and content gap, but the curiosity intensity is more 'interesting' than 'mind-blowing' - solid B-tier content that fits the channel identity well but won't break out.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: body_is_weird
theme: Biology career paths and job searching
suggested_title: Why Hypochondriacs Make Surprisingly Good Doctors
verdict: SKIP
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T02:41:40.832954+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "Mildly counterintuitive but not shocking. Most people could imagine that anxious people might become doctors. The 'wait what' is there but it's not undeniable."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 2, "reasoning": "The source post has only 34 comments and the comment itself is just one person's anecdote. No broader signal that this is a phenomenon people are discussing."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Haven't seen this specific angle - hypochondria as career guidance rather than disorder. Most content treats it as something to fix."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The core idea is one sentence: 'knowledge transforms anxiety into competence.' Stretching to a full video would require research we don't have. Could be 90 seconds, probably not 5 minutes without padding."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Health anxiety is eternal. People will always worry about their bodies and wonder if it's normal."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "Appeals specifically to people who experience health anxiety. That's a decent audience but not universal. People without health anxiety might find this mildly interesting but won't feel the relief."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Lots of content about hypochondria as a disorder to overcome. Some content about medical student syndrome. Nothing that reframes health anxiety as a potentially useful trait that drives people INTO medicine rather than away from it.", "missing_angle": "Treating the obsession as a feature, not a bug - the counterintuitive path from 'person who can't stop thinking about disease' to 'person who professionally thinks about disease'", "target_audience": "Someone lying in bed at 11pm who just spent 45 minutes convinced their heartburn was a heart attack, feeling embarrassed about it but unable to stop", "opening_hook": "There's a type of person who googles every headache, feels every lymph node, and is absolutely certain that mole changed shape. Doctors call this hypochondria. But here's the weird part - a surprising number of those people end up becoming the doctors themselves.", "critical_success_factor": "N/A - recommending skip", "structure": "N/A - recommending skip", "verdict_reasoning": "The cluster is career advice for biology students - almost nothing about bodies or weird physiology. The one body-adjacent nugget (hypochondria) is an anecdote without enough depth to sustain a video, and the core insight is only mildly counterintuitive. This is not a fit for 'Your Body Is Weird.'", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: body_is_weird
theme: Entertainment industry insider facts and contradictions
suggested_title: Oscar Voters Don't Have to Watch the Movies
verdict: SKIP
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T02:41:40.832954+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Genuinely surprising to most people \u2014 contradicts the assumption that experts actually evaluate what they're judging"}, "demand_signal": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "0.848 score with 345 comments is moderate engagement \u2014 not the highest in cluster"}, "content_gap": {"score": 2, "reasoning": "Entertainment journalists and YouTube film channels have covered Oscar voting mechanics extensively"}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "Can sustain a video but the reveal is fairly simple \u2014 'honor system, no verification' can be said quickly"}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The 2024 rule change makes this somewhat time-sensitive \u2014 the hook is 'until last year' which dates it"}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "Appeals to film fans and general audiences, but requires some baseline interest in the Oscars"}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Many explainers exist about Oscar voting processes, campaign spending, and industry politics", "missing_angle": "The specific 'they didn't have to watch' framing is punchy, but this angle has been covered in entertainment media", "target_audience": "Someone who just watched the Oscars and is arguing about whether the right film won \u2014 but this person is NOT looking for body content", "opening_hook": "Every year, 10,000 Academy members vote on which film deserves the highest honor in cinema. And until last year, they didn't actually have to watch any of them.", "critical_success_factor": "N/A \u2014 this cluster should not be produced for a body-focused channel regardless of hook quality", "structure": "N/A \u2014 topic does not fit channel", "verdict_reasoning": "This cluster contains zero body-related content \u2014 every post is about film/entertainment industry facts. Even the strongest hook (Oscar voting) is completely off-brand for 'Your Body Is Weird.' A great topic for a film channel is the wrong topic for THIS channel.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: body_is_weird
theme: Consumer whole genome sequencing interpretation
suggested_title: You Have Your Complete DNA. You Still Know Nothing.
verdict: SKIP
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T02:41:40.832954+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The detail is interesting but not stop-scrolling surprising. Most people would think 'yeah, DNA is complicated' not 'wait, how is that possible?' It lacks the true counterintuitive punch."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "49 comments on the main post is decent engagement. Consumer genetics is a real interest area. But the questions are more practical help-seeking than fascinated curiosity."}, "content_gap": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "DNA explainers exist everywhere. The specific 'you own it but can't read it' body-weird angle is less common, but not novel enough to own the space."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "There's genuine substance here - the reveal about how little we understand, the junk DNA mystery, the uniqueness of each person's variants. Could fill 4+ minutes with interesting layers."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Consumer genomics isn't going away. The fundamental gap between having data and understanding it will persist for decades."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 2, "reasoning": "Requires either having done genome sequencing or being interested in doing it. Someone with zero interest in their DNA probably scrolls past."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Lots of 'what your DNA test results mean' content exists, but it's usually either marketing for specific services or technical tutorials for researchers. The 'you have it but can't read it' angle from a body-curiosity perspective is less covered.", "missing_angle": "Framing genome sequencing as a weird body experience - the strange feeling of owning your complete genetic blueprint and being illiterate in the language it's written in. Making it about the body, not about the technology.", "target_audience": "Someone who got a 23andMe or similar test and felt vaguely disappointed that it only told them about earwax type and caffeine sensitivity, now wondering what else is hidden in their results", "opening_hook": "I paid $300 to have my entire genome sequenced. Every single gene in my body. And now I'm sitting here with a file that's bigger than every movie I own combined, and I have absolutely no idea what any of it means. Turns out, having your DNA is nothing like reading your DNA.", "critical_success_factor": "Making the viewer feel the absurdity viscerally - not teaching them about genetics, but making them feel what it's like to hold your complete biological blueprint and be utterly illiterate in it.", "structure": "1. The Promise: what you think you're getting when you sequence your genome. 2. The Reality: what the file actually looks like and why it's incomprehensible. 3. The Gap: what we still don't understand about the human genome. 4. The Weird Truth: strange things buried in everyone's DNA we can't interpret.", "verdict_reasoning": "The hook is merely interesting, not surprising - it lacks the counterintuitive punch that makes someone stop scrolling. A curious cluster for people already interested in genetics, but no specific detail that transcends the topic.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: body_is_weird
theme: New astronomical discoveries and measurements challenging previous assumptions
suggested_title: Jupiter Has Been The Wrong Size In Every Textbook For Decades
verdict: SKIP
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T02:41:40.832954+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "Mildly interesting that Jupiter was mismeasured, but not truly shocking. Most people don't have strong priors about Jupiter's exact dimensions. The 'textbooks will need updating' hook tries to make it feel bigger but it's more of a refinement than a revelation."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 2, "reasoning": "76 comments is decent but not explosive. The scoring metrics (0.884) are moderate. This is niche astronomy content that appeals to existing space enthusiasts, not breaking through to general audiences."}, "content_gap": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "Space YouTube has covered Juno findings extensively. The specific 'your textbook was wrong' framing is somewhat fresh but not unique."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Good depth here \u2014 can explain the measurement methods, why they failed, what Juno did differently, and broader implications. Satisfying reveal about atmospheric vs gravitational measurement."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Once the textbooks are updated, the 'they were wrong' angle becomes historical, but the underlying science about how we measure planets remains interesting."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 2, "reasoning": "Requires some baseline interest in space/astronomy. The average person doesn't care enough about Jupiter's dimensions to stop scrolling. No universal human experience hook."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Space channels have covered the Juno findings, but most focused on Jupiter's interior structure rather than the 'your textbook was wrong' angle", "missing_angle": "The framing that confident scientific consensus can be measurably incorrect about basic observational facts", "target_audience": "Someone scrolling who remembers memorizing planet facts in school and wants to feel like they know something their textbooks got wrong", "opening_hook": "Every science textbook you've ever read has Jupiter's measurements wrong. Not slightly off \u2014 enough that astronomers are now saying textbooks need to be rewritten. We've been staring at this planet for 400 years. How did we mess up something this basic?", "critical_success_factor": "N/A \u2014 wrong channel. This cluster belongs on a space/astronomy channel, not a body-focused curiosity channel.", "structure": "N/A \u2014 does not fit channel", "verdict_reasoning": "This is astronomy content with zero connection to human bodies \u2014 completely wrong channel fit for 'Your Body Is Weird' regardless of the topic's standalone merit.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: body_is_weird
theme: Medical school experience and residency matching
suggested_title: Med Students Can Intubate You But Might Fail Basic First Aid
verdict: SKIP
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T02:41:40.832954+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "Mildly surprising - 'huh, that's weird' rather than 'wait, WHAT?' Most people would find it somewhat interesting but not compulsively clickable. The escalation from 'med student' to 'failed first aid' isn't dramatic enough."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 2, "reasoning": "The source post has only 7 comments. The broader cluster is high-engagement but for career/match anxiety, not body-weirdness. No cross-source signal on this specific topic."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Haven't seen this specific angle covered. The procedural vs declarative memory distinction isn't usually illustrated with this example."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 2, "reasoning": "The core reveal can be explained in 30 seconds. There's no second layer of surprise. The video would need significant padding or tangential content to reach even 3 minutes."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "How the brain stores different types of knowledge is timeless. Not tied to any news cycle."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 2, "reasoning": "Requires interest in either medical education or neuroscience of learning. Someone scrolling TikTok with no connection to either wouldn't stop. 'Med student fails test' doesn't have universal appeal."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Plenty of 'why you forget things under pressure' content exists. The specific med-student-fails-first-aid angle is fresh but the underlying explanation is well-covered territory.", "missing_angle": "The specific irony of advanced medical knowledge failing at basics - but this angle is narrow and may not resonate broadly", "target_audience": "Someone who just bombed a practical exam despite knowing the material cold, sitting in their car wondering if they're actually stupid", "opening_hook": "A medical student walked into a first aid certification course. They didn't tell anyone they were in med school. They failed. And honestly? It makes complete sense when you understand how your brain stores different types of knowledge.", "critical_success_factor": "N/A - not recommended for production", "structure": "N/A - not recommended for production", "verdict_reasoning": "This cluster is medical school insider content with no genuine body-weird hooks; the best nugget is thin, low-demand, and doesn't fit the channel's competitive gap of 'counterintuitive things your body does.'", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: body_is_weird
theme: Money, economics, and financial systems
suggested_title: Which Sense Would You Sell First?
verdict: SKIP
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T02:41:40.832954+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 2, "reasoning": "The 'which sense would you give up' question is familiar territory - it's a classic thought experiment that most people have encountered in some form. There's no specific counterintuitive fact here, just an invitation to introspect. Mild curiosity at best."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 2, "reasoning": "The source post has only 4 comments on r/morbidquestions. This is not evidence of strong demand. The cluster as a whole has high engagement but almost entirely on money/economics topics, not body topics."}, "content_gap": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The specific angle of connecting the thought experiment to real sensory loss research isn't common, but the 'rank your senses' thought experiment itself is well-trodden ground."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 2, "reasoning": "The reveal is weak. 'Your intuitive ranking might be wrong' is not a satisfying answer. To make this work, you'd need very specific research findings about sensory loss quality-of-life that contradict expectations - and that research may not exist in compelling form."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Human senses don't change. This would work in 6 months or 6 years."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "Everyone has senses, so there's universal appeal. But the framing as a hypothetical 'would you rather' is less compelling than a concrete surprising fact."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Philosophy YouTube has covered trolley-problem-style thought experiments extensively. 'Would you rather' content is oversaturated. Sensory science content exists but rarely frames it as a personal choice question.", "missing_angle": "Connecting the thought experiment to actual sensory loss research - showing that your intuitive ranking is probably wrong based on real quality-of-life data", "target_audience": "Someone lying in bed at 11pm, scrolling, who pauses when they realize they've never actually thought about which sense they'd give up", "opening_hook": "Someone offers you a million dollars to permanently lose your sense of smell. You'd probably take it, right? But here's the thing - when researchers actually run this experiment, they find something weird. The sense most people think they'd give up first... isn't actually the one they'd miss least.", "critical_success_factor": "Finding actual research data showing that people's quality-of-life after losing specific senses contradicts their predictions - without this, it's just a fun hypothetical with no satisfying answer", "structure": "N/A - SKIP verdict", "verdict_reasoning": "This cluster is fundamentally about money/economics and doesn't fit 'Your Body Is Weird' - the only body-adjacent post has weak engagement (4 comments), no specific counterintuitive hook, and would require substantial research to find a satisfying reveal that may not exist.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: body_is_weird
theme: Anatomy learning resources and student art critique
suggested_title: Your Anatomy Textbook Has Been Wrong About Your Lungs This Whole Time
verdict: SKIP
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T02:41:40.832954+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 2, "reasoning": "The 'textbook is wrong' hook is mildly interesting, but the specific error (alveoli labeling) requires anatomy knowledge to appreciate. A general viewer doesn't know what an alveolus is, so they can't be surprised it's mislabeled. No 'wait, what?' for anyone outside anatomy students."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 1, "reasoning": "Extremely low engagement. The 'error' post has only 6 comments. Cross-source count is 1. These are niche anatomy student discussions, not indicators of broad curiosity. High normalized scores are misleading \u2014 this is a tiny subreddit."}, "content_gap": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "Textbook anatomy errors aren't heavily covered in short-form, but that's because there's no demand, not because there's an opportunity gap. The gap exists but shouldn't be filled."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 1, "reasoning": "The error can be explained in one sentence: 'Each sphere is an alveolus, not the whole cluster.' There's no 60-second explanation needed, no deeper story, no broader implication. This is a correction, not a revelation."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The error in the book is permanent, but the topic is too niche to matter. Being evergreen only helps if people would want to watch it in the first place."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 1, "reasoning": "Only anatomy students or unusually curious biology enthusiasts would care. The average TikTok scroller has zero connection to alveoli labeling conventions. This fails the 'chess players lose 10 pounds' test completely."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Anatomy correction content exists but is niche \u2014 targeted at students, not general audiences. The failure isn't that good content doesn't exist; it's that this topic doesn't warrant general-audience content.", "missing_angle": "The channel could theoretically own 'textbook errors about your body' as a series, but this specific error is too technical and too unrelatable to launch that concept.", "target_audience": "A pre-med student highlighting their anatomy coloring book who suddenly doubts whether they've been learning correct information", "opening_hook": "This is one of the most popular anatomy books ever made. Medical students use it. Artists use it. And on page 132, it's completely wrong about one of the most important parts of your lungs.", "critical_success_factor": "N/A \u2014 this concept should not be produced", "structure": "N/A \u2014 not viable for production", "verdict_reasoning": "No genuinely surprising detail exists in this cluster that would work for a general audience \u2014 it's anatomy student homework help and art critique, not 'Your Body Is Weird' content.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: body_is_weird
theme: Genetics education resources and career paths
suggested_title: N/A - No viable concept for this channel
verdict: SKIP
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T02:41:40.832954+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 1, "reasoning": "There is no specific detail in this cluster that makes someone think 'wait, what does my body do?' It's all academic/career content. The E. coli post is mildly interesting but isn't about the human body at all."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 2, "reasoning": "Low engagement across the board - most posts have 0-7 comments. The highest engagement is on 'Useful Resources' (34 comments) which is just a list of study materials. No viral interest."}, "content_gap": {"score": 2, "reasoning": "Irrelevant - there's nothing here that fits the channel identity. Content gap analysis doesn't matter when the topic is wrong for the channel."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 1, "reasoning": "No hook to explain. Career advice and textbook recommendations don't create curiosity gaps."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 2, "reasoning": "Career and education content is perennial, but that's not what this channel does."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 1, "reasoning": "This appeals specifically to genetics students and aspiring geneticists - a tiny niche. Zero crossover appeal to the general 'curious about my body' audience."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Plenty of 'watch evolution happen' content exists (the famous Kishony mega-plate experiment went viral). But more importantly, this doesn't fit the channel.", "missing_angle": "N/A", "target_audience": "N/A - This cluster's actual audience is genetics students and aspiring geneticists, not people curious about their own bodies", "opening_hook": "N/A", "critical_success_factor": "N/A", "structure": "N/A", "verdict_reasoning": "This cluster contains zero content about the human body - it's entirely academic career advice and study resource requests for genetics students. Completely misaligned with 'Your Body Is Weird' channel identity.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: body_is_weird
theme: Entertainment media trivia and performance history
suggested_title: N/A - No viable body-focused hook exists in this cluster
verdict: SKIP
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T02:41:40.832954+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 1, "reasoning": "No specific body-related hook exists. The cluster contains pop culture trivia (Nickelback, Madonna, Super Bowl halftime shows) that has nothing to do with 'Your Body Is Weird.' The two vaguely body-adjacent posts offer no counterintuitive facts about human physiology."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 1, "reasoning": "The high-engagement posts (400+ comments on Nickelback, Madonna, Super Bowl content) are completely off-topic for this channel. The one relevant post (anatomy music video) has zero comments. No demand signal for body content here."}, "content_gap": {"score": 1, "reasoning": "Irrelevant - there's no viable concept to assess for content gap."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 1, "reasoning": "Nothing to explain. There's no 'why does the body do this?' question raised by any post in this cluster."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 1, "reasoning": "N/A - no concept to evaluate."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 1, "reasoning": "N/A - no concept to evaluate."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "N/A", "missing_angle": "N/A", "target_audience": "N/A", "opening_hook": "N/A", "critical_success_factor": "N/A - This cluster should not produce a video for this channel.", "structure": "N/A", "verdict_reasoning": "This cluster contains zero viable content for 'Your Body Is Weird' - it's an entertainment/media trivia cluster with no counterintuitive body science hooks.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: Neuroscience methodology and astrocyte research
suggested_title: Every Brain Scan You've Seen Might Be Lying to You
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This directly undermines something the viewer has seen and believed hundreds of times. Every 'brain lights up' headline is now suspect. The gap between 'I thought I understood brain scans' and 'wait, they might show the opposite?' is enormous and unresolvable without explanation."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "31 comments on r/psychology, 34 comments on the BOLD signal post on r/neuroscience. Cross-referenced finding appearing in multiple posts. Not viral-level engagement but strong interest in a technical finding, which suggests the accessible version would hit harder."}, "content_gap": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Searched my knowledge: no major YouTube explainer has tackled 'fMRI might fundamentally misread activity' as a central hook. Plenty of 'how fMRI works' content exists, but not 'fMRI has been misleading us.' This is wide open."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The explanation requires understanding blood oxygen vs. neural activity, what astrocytes do, and why the assumption failed. This is 2-4 minutes of content minimum. One additional layer of surprise: astrocytes (the 'glue cells') might be controlling blood flow independently, which ties to the other cluster posts about astrocyte memory."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This isn't tied to any news event. The fundamental critique of fMRI methodology will remain relevant as long as brain scan images appear in media. This is a permanent reframe."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Anyone who has ever seen a brain scan image in any context \u2014 news, documentaries, social media \u2014 is the audience. That's essentially everyone. You don't need to care about neuroscience to feel betrayed by 'that colorful brain picture was misleading.'"}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Pop-science channels have covered 'what fMRI shows us' many times, but always FROM the assumption that fMRI is reliable. Nobody has done 'actually, the fundamental assumption might be wrong.' There are academic critiques but no accessible explainer.", "missing_angle": "This video frames the viewer as having been systematically misled by confident brain imagery \u2014 not by malicious scientists, but by a tool everyone trusted too much. It fits the channel's 'your brain is lying to you' angle perfectly: even the SCIENCE about your brain has been partially misleading.", "target_audience": "Someone scrolling who has ever seen a brain scan image in a news article or documentary and thought 'oh cool, so that's what happens in the brain' \u2014 and is now realizing they were sold false confidence", "opening_hook": "You know those brain scan images where they say 'this area lights up when you're in love' or 'this is your brain on drugs'? Tens of thousands of scientific studies are based on reading those signals. Turns out, the signal they're measuring can show MORE activity in areas where neurons are actually doing LESS. We've been reading the map upside down.", "critical_success_factor": "The viewer must feel the accumulated weight of all the brain scan images they've trusted over the years \u2014 and then feel the ground shift. Not 'scientists are frauds' but 'even careful science can build confidence on shaky foundations.' The tone must be revelation, not accusation.", "structure": "1. THE HOOK: Those brain scan images you've seen everywhere? The signal might show the opposite of what's actually happening. 2. THE ASSUMPTION: How fMRI works \u2014 blood oxygen as a proxy for brain activity. Why everyone trusted this. 3. THE CRACK: New research shows blood flow can INCREASE when neurons DECREASE activity. The 'support cells' have their own agenda. 4. THE REFRAME: What this means for you \u2014 every 'your brain on X' claim was always more uncertain than it looked. You weren't being lied to, but you were being given false confidence.", "verdict_reasoning": "This is a perfect channel fit: the science your brain TOLD you was reliable is itself unreliable. The hook is undeniable (everyone has seen brain scans), the gap is wide (no accessible video exists), and the reveal is genuinely satisfying without being letdown.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: Narcissism and self-perception distortions
suggested_title: The Person Always Playing Victim Might Be the Narcissist
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is a genuine 'wait, what?' The cultural assumption is that victims are sympathetic and narcissists are arrogant. This says they can be the same person. Anyone who knows a 'perpetual victim' will immediately think of that person and need the explanation."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "261 comments on one post, 150 on a related post. Multiple posts in this cluster touch the same finding. This isn't inflated generic engagement \u2014 it's specific engagement on this exact counterintuitive claim."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Searched my knowledge: vulnerable narcissism content exists but is usually clinical/academic. No major short-form creator has owned the 'perpetual victim = narcissist' hook specifically. The 'spot a narcissist' content focuses on grandiose types."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Multiple layers: the link, the two narcissism types, the psychological mechanism, why observers feel conflicted, self-reflection. The core reveal (both types seek 'special' status) is satisfying and takes real explanation."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Human nature content. Not tied to any news event. 'That friend who's always the victim' exists in every social group in every era."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Anyone with social relationships can relate. You don't need to care about psychology \u2014 you just need to have encountered someone who's always having problems. That's nearly universal."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Lots of 'how to spot a narcissist' content exists, but it almost always describes the arrogant, self-promoting type. Vulnerable narcissism content exists in psychology podcasts but rarely in short-form. Nothing directly connects 'that friend who's always the victim' to narcissism in a way a general audience would encounter. The framing is usually clinical, not 'here's why you feel weird about your friend.'", "missing_angle": "This video reframes a social experience everyone has had (exhaustion at the perpetual victim) through a specific psychological mechanism (vulnerable narcissism) that validates the viewer's instinct while giving them precise language for what they're seeing. It's not 'narcissists are bad' \u2014 it's 'your brain is lying to you about who the narcissist is in your social circle.'", "target_audience": "Someone scrolling who's been feeling guilty about being annoyed at a friend who always has drama, always has problems, always needs support but never seems to get better \u2014 and they've been wondering 'am I a bad person for being tired of this?'", "opening_hook": "There's a personality test that predicts whether someone constantly feels like a victim. It's not a trauma test. It's not a bad-luck test. It's a narcissism test. And people who score high on 'chronic victim identity' also score high on a very specific type of narcissism most people don't know exists.", "critical_success_factor": "The video must NOT come across as 'victims are liars' or 'don't believe people who say they're hurt.' It must clearly distinguish between actual victims of specific events and the chronic identity pattern. The empathy must be genuine \u2014 'these people really do feel victimized, that's what makes it a disorder' \u2014 while still delivering the counterintuitive insight.", "structure": "1. THE FLIP: Open with the personality test reveal \u2014 chronic victim identity correlates with narcissism, not trauma. 2. THE HIDDEN TYPE: Introduce vulnerable narcissism vs. grandiose narcissism \u2014 two paths to the same destination (feeling special). 3. THE MECHANISM: Why perpetual victims genuinely perceive slights everywhere \u2014 the hypervigilance isn't fake, it's the trait itself. 4. THE TRAP: Why you feel guilty questioning them, and how that guilt is part of the pattern. Brief self-check: signs you might do this.", "verdict_reasoning": "This is a genuine 5/5 curiosity hook that directly serves the 'Your Brain Is Lying' channel thesis \u2014 your instinct to sympathize with the perpetual victim is being exploited by a form of narcissism you didn't know existed.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: Romantic relationships, attachment, and dating psychology
suggested_title: Men Suffer More From Breakups. We Just Don't Believe Them.
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Directly contradicts a deeply held cultural assumption. Most people have a strong intuition that women suffer more from breakups, and this finding says that intuition is wrong. Strong 'wait, what?' potential."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "506 comments on the source post is exceptional engagement. This clearly struck a nerve. The topic touches universal experience\u2014almost everyone has experienced or witnessed a breakup."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "While 'men and emotions' content exists, no major creator owns the specific angle of 'your perception of male breakup suffering is systematically wrong.' The adversarial framing against the viewer's own mental model is unique."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Multiple layers: the data, the psychological mechanism (externalized support systems), the performance of recovery, the societal consequences. This is a 5-minute video minimum with room for compelling examples."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This finding is about enduring psychological patterns and cultural beliefs, not news. Will be just as relevant in 5 years."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Anyone who's experienced or witnessed a breakup cares about this. That's essentially everyone. Slight deduction because the framing focuses on men, which might initially seem like 'not for me' to some women (though the content is actually about everyone's misperception)."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "There's generic 'men struggle with emotions' content and some clinical content about male depression. But most content either (a) lectures men about toxic masculinity or (b) is redpill content that denies male vulnerability entirely. Nothing frames this as a PERCEPTION problem\u2014as your brain systematically misreading reality.", "missing_angle": "Framing this as collective self-deception rather than 'men need to open up.' The video isn't about what men should do\u2014it's about why everyone, including men themselves, is running the wrong mental model. The 'Your Brain Is Lying' angle makes this about perception, not prescription.", "target_audience": "A man six months post-breakup who's been pretending he's fine while privately devastated, scrolling at 1am and finally seeing his experience named. Also: anyone who's watched a male friend go through a breakup and didn't know how to help because 'he seemed fine.'", "opening_hook": "Think about the last breakup story you heard. If it was a woman, you probably expected tears, ice cream, processing with friends. If it was a man, you probably expected... what? Moving on? A rebound? Here's what actually happens to men after breakups, and why your brain refuses to see it.", "critical_success_factor": "Must avoid two failure modes: (a) coming across as 'men have it worse' grievance content, or (b) lecturing about toxic masculinity. The frame must stay on PERCEPTION\u2014why your brain gets this wrong\u2014not on prescribing what men or society should do differently.", "structure": "1) THE ASSUMPTION: Open with what everyone 'knows' about gendered breakup responses. 2) THE DATA: Present the counterintuitive research\u2014men suffer more intensely and longer. 3) THE MECHANISM: Explain WHY\u2014externalized emotional support systems, single-point-of-failure intimacy. 4) THE DOUBLE LIE: Men perform recovery + everyone believes performance = invisible suffering. 5) THE COST: Brief on real consequences (depression, isolation, worse outcomes) + what this reveals about how we misread others.", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong counterintuitive hook with exceptional Reddit engagement, perfect fit for channel identity ('your brain lies about who's vulnerable'), multiple layers of depth, and evergreen relevance.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: Political polarization and ideological psychology
suggested_title: Americans Liked Muslims MORE After 9/11 (Here's Why)
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is genuinely impossible to encounter without needing the explanation. The statistic directly contradicts the universal assumption about what happened after 9/11. I cannot imagine scrolling past this."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "140 comments on AskSocialScience is strong engagement for that sub. The question framing ('How could 9/11 make Americans more positive?') shows the poster themselves found it inexplicable. Not viral-level but solid proof of genuine confusion/interest."}, "content_gap": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Searched mentally through 9/11 content landscape\u2014it's all about Islamophobia increasing, hate crimes, discrimination. The 'opinions actually improved immediately' angle is virtually untouched because it contradicts the dominant narrative."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The psychological mechanism (social cost of bigotry vs. emotional threat response) requires real explanation. The subsequent reversal adds depth. Could potentially be thin if you only have the one stat, but the Pew data has follow-up waves showing the trajectory."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The specific event is historical but the psychological principle (your brain mismodels threat response) is permanent. Would work in 5 years. Slight ding because it's tied to a specific historical moment."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Anyone who lived through 9/11 or learned about it has strong assumptions about what happened. The counterintuitive fact works regardless of political interest. Slight limitation: younger viewers might not have the same emotional context."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Plenty of content about post-9/11 Islamophobia exists, but it all assumes the narrative that opinions got worse. Almost nothing covers the counterintuitive initial improvement and WHY it happened psychologically. The standard narrative is 'tragedy \u2192 hate crimes \u2192 slow recovery.' The actual data shows 'tragedy \u2192 immediate approval spike \u2192 gradual erosion.' Nobody is telling this story.", "missing_angle": "Framing this as YOUR BRAIN LYING TO YOU about how humans respond to threats. Not 'here's an interesting historical fact' but 'here's proof that your mental model of human psychology is wrong, and here's what's actually happening under the hood.'", "target_audience": "Someone scrolling at 11pm who just saw a heated political argument online and is thinking 'why are people so predictably tribal?'\u2014then encounters a fact that proves their model of tribal psychology is completely wrong", "opening_hook": "On September 12th, 2001, conservative Americans' opinion of Muslims jumped from 35% favorable to 64%. Not down. Up. After the worst terrorist attack in American history, the people you'd expect to be most angry became almost twice as positive about the group associated with the attackers. Your brain is telling you that's wrong. It's not. And the reason why reveals something uncomfortable about how your mind actually works.", "critical_success_factor": "The opening must present the statistic with zero hedging and maximum contrast. If the viewer doesn't feel genuine cognitive dissonance in the first 15 seconds\u2014'wait, that CAN'T be right'\u2014the whole video fails. The stat must hit like a punch.", "structure": "1) THE IMPOSSIBLE STATISTIC: Present the Pew data cold\u2014opinions improved, especially among conservatives. Let viewer sit with the dissonance. 2) YOUR BRAIN'S PREDICTION: Walk through what everyone assumes (attack \u2192 blame \u2192 hatred) and why that model feels so obvious. 3) THE REAL MECHANISM: Social cost of bigotry spiked immediately. 'We are not bigots' became a patriotic identity marker. Humans respond to social consequences, not events. 4) THE UNCOMFORTABLE IMPLICATION: This means your moral responses aren't really 'yours'\u2014they're calculations about social permission. And when permission structures shift, so do you.", "verdict_reasoning": "A verified, specific statistic that completely inverts universal assumptions, perfect channel fit ('your brain lies about how you respond to threats'), strong depth, and virtually no competition for this angle.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: AI and cognitive psychology / human-AI interaction
suggested_title: Why Your AI Seems So Smart (It's Just Agreeing With You)
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The specific inversion (agreeable = perceived as unbiased, disagreeable = perceived as biased) is genuinely counterintuitive. Most people assume they can tell when something is just flattering them. This study says: no, you literally cannot."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "80 comments on r/psychology is solid engagement. The broader topic of AI chatbots is culturally saturated right now \u2014 everyone uses them, everyone has opinions. This specific angle has a hook into that massive conversation."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "AI content is oversaturated, but almost all of it is either 'AI is amazing' or 'AI is dangerous.' The 'AI exploits your pre-existing cognitive biases' angle \u2014 especially with the specific sycophancy study \u2014 is fresh territory."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Multiple layers: the study itself, the psychological mechanism (agreement = trust), the historical context (yes-men through history), and the practical stakes (decisions made on false confidence). This is a full video, not a fun fact."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "As long as AI chatbots exist and agree with users, this will be relevant. The underlying psychology (we trust what agrees with us) is permanent human nature."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Anyone who has ever used ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, or any AI assistant \u2014 which is now hundreds of millions of people \u2014 is the audience. You don't need prior interest in psychology to feel the hook."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Lots of content on 'AI bias' focuses on training data bias, political bias, or factual errors. Very little frames the bias as coming from YOUR perception of the AI, not the AI itself. The 'your brain interprets agreement as objectivity' angle is underexplored.", "missing_angle": "This video flips the AI bias conversation. It's not about whether ChatGPT is biased \u2014 it's about why YOUR BRAIN cannot accurately evaluate whether ChatGPT is biased. The enemy isn't the AI. It's your own perception.", "target_audience": "Someone who just asked ChatGPT for advice on a big decision and felt validated when it agreed with their instinct \u2014 now wondering if they were just talking to a mirror.", "opening_hook": "Researchers gave people two AI chatbots. One agreed with everything they said. One pushed back and challenged them. Then they asked: which AI is more biased? The results should terrify you.", "critical_success_factor": "The video must make the viewer feel the personal stakes \u2014 not 'isn't this an interesting study' but 'oh no, I just did this yesterday.' The hook only works if the viewer sees themselves in it.", "structure": "1. THE STUDY: Two chatbots, one agrees, one challenges \u2014 participants rate the agreeable one as unbiased (30 sec). 2. THE INFLATION: Sycophantic AI made people rate themselves as 'better than average' more often \u2014 your self-image is being quietly inflated (60 sec). 3. THE MECHANISM: Why does agreement feel like truth? The neuroscience of validation \u2014 reward circuits, critical thinking bypass (90 sec). 4. THE STAKES: You're making real decisions based on an AI that's essentially a yes-man with infinite patience \u2014 what that means for your life (60 sec).", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong counterintuitive hook from peer-reviewed research, perfect channel fit ('your brain is lying'), massive potential audience (everyone using AI chatbots), and genuine depth beyond the initial hook.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: Time perception, sleep schedules, and temporal psychology
suggested_title: You're Not a Night Owl. You're Afraid of Tomorrow.
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The reframe from 'you love staying up' to 'you're running from tomorrow' is genuinely surprising. Most people have never articulated this, even though they do it constantly. It names something invisible."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The source post has 28 comments on r/Neuropsychology with a 0.958 score. More importantly, bedtime procrastination is a universal experience \u2014 the latent demand is enormous even if the specific Reddit engagement is moderate."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Sleep content is saturated, but it's all 'how to sleep better' \u2014 practical tips. The psychological 'your brain is lying about why you stay up' angle is essentially unoccupied. No major creator owns this frame."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This has multiple explanatory layers: the phenomenon itself, the control mechanism, the tomorrow-dread connection, the feedback loop, and what actually helps. Easy 4-6 minute video with no padding."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "People will be staying up too late and regretting it for the rest of human existence. This is permanent psychology, not news."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Everyone with a phone and a job does this. The hook doesn't require interest in psychology or sleep science \u2014 it requires having stayed up late doing nothing, which is universal."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Plenty of 'sleep hygiene' and 'how to fix your sleep schedule' content exists, but it all treats late nights as a discipline problem to be solved with blue light glasses and consistent bedtimes. Almost nothing addresses the PSYCHOLOGICAL mechanism \u2014 that your brain is actively sabotaging sleep as a coping strategy. The patronizing 'just put your phone down' advice misses the entire point.", "missing_angle": "This frames bedtime procrastination as your brain LYING to you about what you want. You think you want to stay up. You actually want to escape tomorrow. The 'Your Brain Is Lying' channel is uniquely positioned to make this a self-deception story rather than a productivity hack.", "target_audience": "Someone lying in bed at 11:47pm, phone brightness at zero, scrolling Reddit while thinking 'I should really sleep' but not moving \u2014 and for the first time understanding WHY they're doing this.", "opening_hook": "Last night you stayed up until 2am doing absolutely nothing useful. You weren't watching something great. You weren't having fun. You were scrolling the same three apps, exhausted, knowing you'd regret it. Here's the disturbing reason your brain forced you to do that anyway.", "critical_success_factor": "The opening 15 seconds must perfectly describe the viewer's exact experience \u2014 the specific apps, the specific tiredness, the specific 'I should stop' thought \u2014 so they feel SEEN before the explanation begins. If the recognition moment doesn't land, the reframe won't either.", "structure": "1. THE RITUAL (30s): Describe the exact experience \u2014 11pm, exhausted, scrolling nothing, knowing you should sleep, not sleeping. Build recognition. 2. THE LIE (90s): Your brain tells you that you 'want' to stay up, that this is 'your time.' But notice: you're not enjoying it. Name bedtime procrastination and explain the control mechanism. 3. THE REAL ENEMY (90s): It's not about sleep. It's about tomorrow. The more you dread what's coming, the more your brain tries to delay its arrival. Specific examples: Sunday nights, dreaded Monday meetings. 4. THE TRAP (60s): Staying up makes tomorrow WORSE, which makes you dread it MORE, which makes you stay up later. Your brain created a feedback loop. 5. THE EXIT (60s): The solution isn't sleep hygiene \u2014 it's addressing the tomorrow problem. Quick reframe on what actually helps.", "verdict_reasoning": "Universal behavior, genuinely surprising reframe, perfect channel fit ('your brain lies about what you want'), strong depth, no existing competition on this specific angle.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: Temperature and child development/perception
suggested_title: Lost Children Survive Better Than Lost Adults. Here's Why.
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "The claim that children survive better than adults is genuinely unresolvable without explanation. Every instinct says adults should do better. You HAVE to know why."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The Reddit post has only 15 comments, but it references THREE books independently making this observation. The low comment count is offset by the fact that multiple authors found this surprising enough to write about. Moderate signal."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Survival YouTube is huge but almost entirely practical ('how to build a shelter'). The psychological angle \u2014 'why smart people die' \u2014 is underexplored. No major video owns this specific hook."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Multiple layers: the statistics themselves, the psychology of panic vs. stillness, real case studies, the broader lesson about overconfidence. Could easily be a 6-8 minute video with genuine substance."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Human psychology doesn't change. This is permanently relevant. Not tied to any news cycle."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Anyone who considers themselves competent \u2014 which is most adults \u2014 will find this personally relevant. You don't need to be a hiker. The hook is about the danger of trusting your own judgment."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Survival content exists but focuses on 'what to do if lost' (practical tips) or dramatic rescue stories. The specific angle that ADULT COGNITION is the problem \u2014 that being smart and capable is what kills you \u2014 is unexplored. Most content celebrates adult resourcefulness rather than exposing it as a liability.", "missing_angle": "Framing adult competence itself as the threat. This isn't 'tips for survival' \u2014 it's 'your brain's confidence is a bug, not a feature.'", "target_audience": "Someone who considers themselves competent and capable, maybe someone who hikes or camps, who's never questioned whether their confidence in their own judgment could be the thing that kills them.", "opening_hook": "When someone gets lost in the wilderness, search and rescue teams have a rule: if it's a child, there's a decent chance they're finding them alive. If it's an adult \u2014 especially an adult man \u2014 they're often recovering a body. And the reason isn't what you'd expect. It's not that adults are weaker. It's that adults are smarter. And that's exactly what kills them.", "critical_success_factor": "The opening must establish the paradox viscerally \u2014 the viewer must FEEL how wrong it seems that children survive better. If the setup doesn't land, the reveal won't hit.", "structure": "1. THE PARADOX: Present the survival statistics \u2014 children found alive, adults found dead. Establish the puzzle. 2. WHAT ADULTS DO: Walk through the adult response to being lost \u2014 keep moving, try to problem-solve, make increasingly desperate decisions. Show how each 'smart' choice compounds the danger. 3. WHAT CHILDREN DO: Contrast with child behavior \u2014 sit down, cry, wait. Explain why this 'doing nothing' is actually optimal survival strategy. 4. THE LESSON: Zoom out to the broader principle \u2014 your brain's confidence in itself is often the thing that destroys you. The ability to sit with uncertainty and do nothing is a survival skill most adults have lost.", "verdict_reasoning": "Undeniable curiosity hook that directly exploits the channel's 'your brain is lying to you' positioning, strong depth from multiple source books, and a reveal that will genuinely shift how viewers see their own confidence.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: Gender roles, economic conditions, and relationship dynamics
suggested_title: Why Losing Your Job Makes You More Sexist
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The inversion is genuinely surprising \u2014 stress should create flexibility, not rigidity. Most viewers will recognize this pattern in themselves or others and want to understand why."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "842 comments on the source post is exceptional engagement. This topic clearly triggers discussion, which indicates strong latent interest."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Content about masculinity and economics exists, but the 'self-deception under stress' angle with the adversarial 'your brain betrays you' framing is unoccupied. No major explainer owns this specific hook."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Multiple layers: the finding itself, the psychological mechanism, real-world manifestations, and connection to broader patterns of self-protective beliefs. Could easily fill 5-7 minutes."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Economic uncertainty is permanent. Gender role tensions are permanent. This isn't tied to any news cycle \u2014 it's about how brains work under stress, which is timeless."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Anyone who has experienced stress and noticed themselves becoming less flexible will relate. The gender-specific framing might limit some viewers, but the underlying mechanism (stress \u2192 rigidity) is universal."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Plenty of content exists about 'toxic masculinity' and 'men need to do better,' but this framing is moralistic and alienating. Content about 'economic anxiety' exists but rarely connects to the specific psychological mechanism of identity defense. No major video frames this as 'your brain has a self-destruct button' \u2014 an adversarial relationship with your own defense mechanisms.", "missing_angle": "This video frames the behavior as a BRAIN MALFUNCTION, not a moral failing. The viewer isn't being told they're a bad person \u2014 they're being told their brain is running outdated software under stress. This is the channel's competitive gap: showing self-deception as a system, not a character flaw. The video is diagnostic, not preachy.", "target_audience": "A 28-year-old man scrolling at 11pm who recently got laid off or took a pay cut, and has noticed himself feeling weirdly defensive when his girlfriend talks about her career going well \u2014 and is disturbed by his own reaction but doesn't understand it.", "opening_hook": "Here's something that will break your brain: When men lose their jobs, they should become more open to their wives earning money, right? More income is more income. But researchers found that unemployed men actually become LESS supportive of female breadwinners. The worse their economic situation gets, the harder they cling to beliefs that are actively hurting them. Your brain has a self-destruct button, and economic stress is the trigger.", "critical_success_factor": "The framing must feel DIAGNOSTIC, not JUDGMENTAL. If the viewer feels lectured about sexism, the video fails. If the viewer feels like they're discovering a bug in their own operating system, it succeeds. The tone must be 'here's why your brain does this weird thing' not 'here's why you're a bad person.'", "structure": "1. HOOK: The paradox \u2014 economic stress should create flexibility, but it creates rigidity (30 sec). 2. THE EVIDENCE: Cross-country research showing the pattern is measurable and consistent (90 sec). 3. THE MECHANISM: Identity threat \u2192 compensatory beliefs. Why your brain treats ideology as a substitute for reality (2 min). 4. THE PATTERN: Connect to broader 'self-protective beliefs that backfire' \u2014 this isn't just about gender, it's about how brains defend identity at the cost of outcomes (90 sec). 5. THE EXIT: How to recognize this in yourself \u2014 stress audit, separating identity from circumstance (60 sec).", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong counterintuitive hook backed by exceptional engagement (842 comments), directly exploits the channel's competitive gap ('your brain betrays you'), sufficient depth for full explainer, and evergreen topic that will remain relevant indefinitely.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: Mental states and biological aging
suggested_title: Your Inner Critic Is Literally Aging You
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The gap between 'I thought self-criticism was harmless thoughts' and 'it's measurably aging my cells' is stark. Most people engage in daily self-criticism and have never considered physical consequences. The betrayal framing (your brain told you this was helping) adds urgency."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "30 comments, 0.98 score on r/psychology indicates strong engagement. The topic touches universal behavior (everyone has an inner critic) and health anxiety (aging). Cross-cluster reinforcement from multiple aging/anxiety posts suggests this theme has legs."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Self-help content on negative self-talk is saturated, but 'your brain is lying to you about why you criticize yourself, and it's literally aging you' is an unoccupied angle. The adversarial framing against your own mind is distinctive."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Multiple layers: biological mechanism (telomeres, cortisol), evolutionary explanation (social threat detection), psychological twist (brain frames damage as help), modern mismatch (rumination without action). Each layer is separately interesting. Could easily fill 5+ minutes."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Human self-criticism is permanent. The biological aging research is established science, not a news cycle. This works in six months or six years."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Anyone who has ever mentally criticized themselves \u2014 which is essentially everyone \u2014 is the audience. The hook doesn't require interest in psychology or biology to land. The universal experience is the entry point."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Plenty of 'negative self-talk is bad' content exists, but it's all framed as self-help advice (be kinder to yourself!) or vague stress warnings. Nobody frames it as: your brain is running a con \u2014 it convinced you criticism helps, while it's literally aging your cells. The betrayal angle is missing.", "missing_angle": "This video frames self-criticism as a specific lie your brain tells \u2014 not a bad habit, but an active deception where your mind presents cellular damage as self-improvement. The 'your brain is lying' angle transforms generic self-help into a revelation about how your own psychology systematically misleads you.", "target_audience": "Someone lying in bed at 11pm replaying an awkward thing they said at work, mentally calling themselves an idiot, who would stop scrolling if they learned that specific habit was measurably shortening their lifespan.", "opening_hook": "That voice in your head that tells you you're not good enough? The one you thought was keeping you humble, or pushing you to improve? It's physically aging your cells. Not metaphorically. Not 'stress is bad for you.' Your self-criticism is literally shortening your telomeres right now \u2014 and your brain has been lying to you about why it does this.", "critical_success_factor": "The video must nail the BETRAYAL framing \u2014 not 'self-criticism is bad' (boring self-help) but 'your brain actively convinced you this was helping while it aged you.' The viewer must feel they've been conned by their own mind, not lectured about bad habits.", "structure": "1. THE LIE: Open with the hook \u2014 that inner critic you think is keeping you sharp is literally aging your cells. Establish the betrayal. 2. THE BIOLOGY: Explain how self-criticism triggers chronic stress response \u2014 cortisol, telomere shortening, cellular aging markers. Make it viscerally physical. 3. THE EVOLUTIONARY TRAP: Why does the brain do this? Social threat detection made sense when you could act; modern rumination is the mechanism without the release. Your brain hasn't updated its software. 4. THE REFRAME: This isn't 'be nicer to yourself' \u2014 it's recognizing that your brain is running a con. The feeling that criticism is productive IS the lie. Close with the empowerment: now you can see through it.", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong 'wait, what?' moment (self-criticism ages cells), excellent depth, perfect channel fit (your brain lies about self-criticism being helpful), universal audience, and the betrayal framing is distinctive in a saturated self-help space.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: Autism research and diagnosis
suggested_title: Your Brain's Lie Detector Is Broken
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Most people have strong confidence in the 'eyes crinkle = genuine' heuristic. Being told this is wrong for a meaningful subset of people creates real cognitive dissonance. It's not quite a 5 because it requires the viewer to have some familiarity with this heuristic first."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "34 comments on the source post, high upvote ratio. More importantly, body language / lie detection content is perennially popular. This is a contrarian take on an established interest area."}, "content_gap": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "The entire body language content ecosystem REINFORCES these heuristics. I cannot find a single popular video that undermines the Duchenne smile detector. This is a genuine contrarian gap."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The reveal requires explaining the history of Duchenne smile research, the new evidence, and the implications. Easily 3-4 minutes of substantive content. The second layer (what other heuristics are wrong?) provides additional depth."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is about fundamental social perception, not news. It will work indefinitely."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Anyone who interacts with humans uses this heuristic. The 'autism research' framing might narrow it slightly, but the 'your lie detector is broken' hook transcends the specific context."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Tons of content exists on 'how to spot fake smiles' and 'body language tells.' Almost nothing exists that UNDERMINES those heuristics. The existing content reinforces the viewer's confidence in their social radar. This video is the rare one that says 'your radar has blind spots.'", "missing_angle": "This isn't about autism\u2014it's about YOUR perception being systematically calibrated wrong. The autism research is the evidence, but the hook is 'your lie detector is broken.' No existing video frames it as an indictment of the viewer's social perception hardware.", "target_audience": "Someone who just left a conversation thinking 'they said they were happy but their smile seemed fake'\u2014and wondering if they should trust that person less", "opening_hook": "You know how to spot a fake smile, right? The eyes don't crinkle. It's the one thing everyone agrees on\u2014genuine happiness shows in the eyes. Except... it doesn't. Not always. And your brain's lie detector has been wrong about millions of people your entire life.", "critical_success_factor": "The video must NOT feel like it's about autism\u2014it must feel like it's about the VIEWER'S flawed perception. The autism research is evidence, not topic. If it becomes 'autistic people smile differently,' it's a science explainer. If it stays 'YOUR lie detector has been wrong,' it's a scroll-stopper.", "structure": "1. THE HEURISTIC EVERYONE TRUSTS: Establish that 'eyes crinkle = real smile' is universal conventional wisdom. Show how pervasive this is in body language advice. 2. THE BUG IN THE SYSTEM: Introduce the research\u2014some people express genuine happiness without eye involvement. Your detector isn't reading 'fake,' it's reading 'different.' 3. THE UNCOMFORTABLE IMPLICATION: How many people have you dismissed, distrusted, or judged because your calibration was off? This isn't rare\u2014it's millions of people. 4. THE BIGGER QUESTION: What other 'reliable' social perception tools are similarly miscalibrated? (End on productive uncertainty, not paranoia.)", "verdict_reasoning": "This directly exploits the channel's competitive gap\u2014'your brain is lying to you about other people's emotions'\u2014with specific research backing and a contrarian angle in a popular content category where no one else is playing defense.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: Entertainment consumption and performative social behavior
suggested_title: You Don't Hate Corporate Small Talk. You Hate That You Like It.
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The admission 'I used to hate this but now I genuinely enjoy it' is counterintuitive and specific. Most people assume you either hate corporate culture or were always a 'company person.' The transition itself is the hook \u2014 and the implication that you can't trust your own sense of authenticity is genuinely unsettling in a curiosity-provoking way."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "416 comments on r/unpopularopinion is strong engagement. The fact that it's positioned as 'unpopular' but resonated suggests many people have this experience but haven't articulated it. Corporate life content consistently performs well across platforms because the audience is huge and underserved by content that's neither pure cynicism nor toxic positivity."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Corporate culture content tends to fall into two buckets: cynical mockery or productivity/self-help. Almost no content examines the psychological mechanism of how preferences shift through repeated performance. The 'emotional labor becomes real emotion' angle is academically established but hasn't been translated into accessible short-form content with this specific framing."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This topic has substantial academic backing (Hochschild's emotional labor research, identity construction theory, ritual studies). The reveal is satisfying and takes time to explain properly. Multiple layers of depth available \u2014 personal narrative, psychological mechanism, philosophical implications about authenticity."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Corporate work isn't going anywhere. The phenomenon of adapting to social performance is universal and permanent. This will be relevant in 5 years, 10 years, as long as humans work in organizations."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Anyone who has worked in a corporate environment (hundreds of millions of people) has experienced some version of this. Even people who haven't will recognize the phenomenon from social media, TV, or friends' complaints. The hook works for anyone who has ever performed a social role and wondered if they'd internalized it."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Plenty of 'corporate culture is fake' content exists (Office Space, corporate cringe compilations). Some content exists on emotional labor in service jobs. But almost nothing explores the specific phenomenon of LIKING corporate theatre after initially hating it \u2014 and what that reveals about how identity and preference are constructed.", "missing_angle": "This video frames the enjoyment of corporate theatre not as selling out or Stockholm syndrome, but as evidence that your brain can't distinguish authentic preferences from performed ones. It's not 'corporate culture bad' or 'just learn to play the game' \u2014 it's 'you genuinely don't know if you like this or if you've been rewired to like it, and that distinction might not be meaningful.'", "target_audience": "A 28-year-old knowledge worker who just caught themselves saying 'let's take this offline' unironically and felt a flash of self-horror \u2014 then wondered why it bothered them so much", "opening_hook": "When I started my first corporate job, I thought everyone was running an elaborate joke on me. The forced enthusiasm in meetings. The way people said 'let's circle back' without irony. I was disgusted. Two years later, I caught myself genuinely excited to give a performance review. Here's what happened to my brain.", "critical_success_factor": "The video must make the viewer feel seen and intrigued, not judged. The tone should be 'isn't this weird and fascinating about being human' not 'you've been corrupted by capitalism.' The reveal should feel like insight, not indictment.", "structure": "1. THE CONFESSION: Personal narrative of hating corporate culture, then catching yourself enjoying it \u2014 establish the 'wait, what happened to me?' moment. 2. THE MECHANISM: Introduce emotional labor and how repeated performance changes genuine feeling \u2014 your brain can't tell the difference. 3. THE UNCOMFORTABLE IMPLICATION: If this works for corporate theatre, what else have you internalized? Are any of your preferences 'really' yours? 4. THE REFRAME: This isn't about being fake or authentic \u2014 it's about accepting that the distinction is less meaningful than you assumed. You're not broken; you're just more malleable than you thought.", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong specific hook with high engagement signal, perfect fit for 'your brain is lying' channel identity, substantial depth from emotional labor research, and a genuinely counterintuitive reveal that will make viewers question their own preferences.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: Marxism and Cold War ideology debates
suggested_title: The Beatles Might Have Done More Damage to the USSR Than Nuclear Weapons
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Beatles vs. nukes is a genuinely surprising frame. Most people have never considered that consumer culture could be a weapon. The specific juxtaposition (rock music defeating superpower) creates real 'wait, what?' energy."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "49 comments on the source post, which is solid for a thoughtful question. The broader topic (Cold War, Soviet history) has perennial interest. The post framing suggests genuine curiosity, not just debate-baiting."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Academic discussions of 'soft power' exist, but no short-form content frames this as a story about brain mechanisms and self-deception. The psychology angle is unoccupied."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Multiple layers available: historical evidence, psychological mechanism, personal application. The reveal (reward systems > ideology) takes real explanation and has genuine insight. Not a one-liner."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Cold War history isn't going anywhere. The psychological mechanisms are timeless. No news dependency."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "You don't need to care about Cold War history to find 'Beatles beat nukes' surprising. The psychology angle (your brain chases feelings, not ideas) is universally relevant."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "There are documentaries about Soviet culture and academic discussions of 'soft power,' but no one has framed it as 'your brain was the battlefield and feelings were the weapons'\u2014connecting it to how YOUR brain still works the same way today.", "missing_angle": "This video doesn't just explain Cold War history\u2014it uses the Cold War as a case study in how brains actually make decisions, then turns the mirror on the viewer. The competitive gap ('your own mind betrays you') is perfectly exploited: even the USSR couldn't overcome how human reward systems work.", "target_audience": "Someone who just finished watching a documentary about the Cold War and feels like they understand it, but is about to realize they've been thinking about it in completely the wrong frame.", "opening_hook": "The Soviet Union had 45,000 nuclear warheads. The largest military in human history. And according to historians, they may have actually been defeated by... this. [show Beatles album / Levi's jeans] The USSR spent decades trying to prove that communist culture was superior. They failed. Not because Western ideas were better\u2014but because your brain doesn't care about ideas. It cares about how things FEEL.", "critical_success_factor": "The video must make the viewer feel the insight applies to THEM, not just to dead Soviets. The Cold War is the hook; the payoff is 'your brain works the same way.'", "structure": "1. THE SETUP: USSR had everything\u2014nukes, military, space program. They lost anyway. (30 sec) 2. THE SURPRISING CLAIM: Culture war was the real war. Beatles/jeans/Coca-Cola did what missiles couldn't. (60 sec) 3. THE MECHANISM: Why 'high culture' lost to 'mass culture'\u2014your brain optimizes for immediate reward, not ideological coherence. (90 sec) 4. THE MIRROR: You do this too. You think you choose based on values, but you're chasing feelings. Examples from your own life. (60 sec)", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong specific hook that perfectly fits the channel's 'your brain betrays you' identity, with excellent depth and a clear angle that doesn't exist elsewhere.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: Sports, competition, and counterintuitive ethics
suggested_title: Helping a Fallen Athlete Is Actually Cheating
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The title directly contradicts a deeply held assumption. Most people have an immediate emotional reaction to 'helping = good' and this challenges it with a specific, undeniable scenario. It's not quite a 5 because it's not as viscerally shocking as 'Tank Man dying' \u2014 it's more of a 'wait, I never thought about it that way' than 'that's impossible.'"}, "demand_signal": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "1,024 comments is exceptional engagement, and more importantly, the topic itself (viral sportsmanship clips) has massive inherent reach. These videos get tens of millions of views. Anyone who's seen one of those clips is a potential viewer."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "No one has made 'sportsmanship = self-deception' content. Sports commentary exists, ethics debates exist, but the psychological 'your brain is lying' angle applied to this specific scenario appears untaken."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Multiple substantive layers: competition theory, psychological mechanisms, historical precedent, edge cases. The reveal isn't just 'you're wrong' \u2014 it's 'here's WHY your brain does this.' Easily 4-6 minutes."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "These sportsmanship clips go viral constantly and will continue to. The video can be released anytime and will remain relevant indefinitely. No news peg required."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Anyone who's seen a viral sports clip (most people) can engage with this. You don't need to care about sports \u2014 you just need to have experienced the emotional manipulation of watching one of these videos."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Plenty of content praising these moments exists. Some hot-take sports commentary might mention disqualification rules. But no one has framed this as a SELF-DECEPTION problem \u2014 as your brain lying to you about what you're actually watching.", "missing_angle": "This video makes it about YOUR perception, not about the ethics of the athlete. It's not 'should they have helped' \u2014 it's 'why did your brain immediately feel this was heroic when it's logically incoherent?' The adversarial framing toward the viewer's own instincts is what makes it fit the channel.", "target_audience": "Someone who just watched a viral 'sportsmanship' video and teared up, then sees this title and feels a twinge of 'wait, is this going to ruin that for me?' \u2014 and clicks anyway because they need to resolve the dissonance.", "opening_hook": "You've seen this clip. A marathon runner collapses 50 meters from the finish line. Another competitor stops, lifts them up, and carries them across. Everyone cheers. The internet calls it beautiful. But here's what nobody wants to say out loud: that runner didn't finish the marathon. They finished 26.18 miles. And every time you praise this moment, you're lying to yourself about what competition actually is.", "critical_success_factor": "The video must NOT come across as mean-spirited or attacking the athletes. The villain is our own perception, not the people in the clips. The tone must be 'here's something fascinating about how we process this' not 'those athletes are cheaters.'", "structure": "1. THE MOMENT YOU'VE SEEN (30s): Show/describe the viral clip archetype. Acknowledge it feels moving. 2. THE QUESTION YOU NEVER ASKED (90s): What is competition actually measuring? If you can't cross the line yourself, did you complete the race? Introduce the dissonance. 3. WHY YOUR BRAIN LIES (120s): We conflate 'good person' and 'good competitor.' Watching struggle triggers discomfort WE want to resolve \u2014 the 'help' is for us. 4. THE UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTH (90s): Historical rules, disqualification precedents, and the question of what we actually want sports to tell us about human limits.", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong curiosity hook that directly challenges a universal assumption, massive demand signal (1,024 comments + viral clip ecosystem), perfect fit for channel identity ('your brain is lying about what sportsmanship means'), and sufficient depth for a full video.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: LGBTQ+ social perception and discrimination patterns
suggested_title: Why Society Punishes Femininity More Than Masculinity
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The pattern is genuinely surprising once stated. Most people have never consciously connected 'gay men face more hostility than lesbians' with 'trans women face more hostility than trans men' into a unified bias. The 'your brain punishes femininity' framing creates real cognitive dissonance."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The source post has 323 comments \u2014 extremely high engagement for AskSocialScience. People are actively trying to understand this pattern. The question format shows genuine curiosity, not just hot-take engagement."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Academic papers discuss femmephobia. Some Twitter threads mention it. But no popular explainer video owns this specific angle \u2014 connecting all these phenomena into one bias pattern. The 'Your Brain Is Lying' framing is genuinely novel."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This has multiple layers: the pattern itself, the psychological mechanism, everyday examples viewers will recognize, and the uncomfortable self-reflection moment. Each layer is a separate revelation. Could easily fill 5-7 minutes."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is about a fundamental cognitive bias, not a news event. The pattern has existed for centuries and will continue. No expiration date."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "This is somewhat limited to people who already think about gender/sexuality issues or are open to that content. Someone completely uninterested in LGBT topics might scroll past. However, the 'your brain has a hidden bias' angle could pull in psychology-curious viewers who don't care about the specific topic."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Plenty of content exists about homophobia and transphobia separately. Some academic content discusses femmephobia. But no popular short-form video connects ALL of these examples (gay men, trans women, feminine boys, masculine women) into a single unified pattern that the viewer can suddenly see everywhere.", "missing_angle": "This video names the pattern most people have observed but never articulated. It gives viewers a new lens \u2014 'femmephobia' \u2014 that suddenly explains dozens of seemingly unrelated social phenomena. The viewer walks away able to see something they couldn't see before.", "target_audience": "Someone who considers themselves progressive on LGBT issues, scrolling late at night, who encounters this and thinks 'wait, I've never connected those dots before' \u2014 and then realizes they might carry this bias themselves", "opening_hook": "Here's a pattern you've seen your whole life but never consciously noticed. Gay men face more violence, more discrimination, and more social rejection than lesbians. Trans women face more hostility than trans men. Feminine men get mocked more than masculine women. Why? Because your brain doesn't just have biases \u2014 it has a direction. And that direction punishes anyone who moves toward femininity.", "critical_success_factor": "The video must make viewers SEE the pattern before naming it. If the reveal comes too early, it feels like a lecture. The first 60 seconds must stack examples until the viewer is already thinking 'wait, these are all the same thing' \u2014 then the video confirms what they've just realized themselves.", "structure": "1) THE PATTERN: Present the data \u2014 gay men vs lesbians, trans women vs trans men, feminine boys vs tomboys. Ask: what do these have in common? 2) THE REVEAL: Introduce femmephobia \u2014 your brain doesn't just have prejudices, it has a direction. Movement toward femininity is punished; movement toward masculinity is tolerated or celebrated. 3) EVERYDAY PROOF: Rapid-fire examples \u2014 'girl boss' vs 'sissy,' women in suits vs men in dresses, action heroines vs romantic male leads. The viewer starts seeing the pattern everywhere. 4) THE UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTH: Even people who consider themselves progressive often carry this bias. The hierarchy isn't 'men good, women bad' \u2014 it's 'masculinity valuable, femininity less valuable.'", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong curiosity hook that perfectly fits the channel's 'your brain is lying to you' angle, exceptional depth with multiple reveal layers, high engagement signal (323 comments), and genuine content gap \u2014 no one owns this specific pattern-reveal framing.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: Attractiveness perception and social bias
suggested_title: Your Confidence Is Lying to You About Her Interest
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The specific finding \u2014 same video, different perceived reality based on self-rating \u2014 is genuinely counterintuitive. Most people assume they're reading signals, not projecting. This creates real 'wait, what?' energy."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The source post had 105 comments on r/psychology, indicating genuine engagement. The topic (dating, attraction, signals) is perpetually high-interest. Cross-source count is only 1, but the specificity of engagement is strong."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Searched mentally for existing content \u2014 dating advice and confidence videos are everywhere, but nothing frames confidence as a systematic perceptual distortion. The 'your ego is lying to you' angle on romantic signals is empty."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Multiple layers: the study finding, the cognitive mechanism, the broader implications for social perception, and the double-distortion of appearance bias. Easily 3-5 minutes of substance, not a one-liner."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Human mating psychology doesn't change. This will be just as relevant in 5 years. No news hook, pure timeless psychology."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Anyone who has ever wondered 'was she into me?' is the audience \u2014 which is most humans. The hook transcends psychology-enthusiast niche."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Plenty of content exists about 'signs she's interested' and 'confidence in dating.' None of it frames confidence as a DISTORTION MECHANISM rather than a success factor. The adversarial angle \u2014 your confidence is lying to you \u2014 is unoccupied.", "missing_angle": "Most dating/psychology content treats confidence as helpful. This video reveals it as a perception-warping force that makes you WORSE at reading reality, not better. The channel's 'your brain betrays you' identity is perfectly served.", "target_audience": "A guy replaying a conversation in his head, trying to figure out if she was into him \u2014 who's about to realize the answer has nothing to do with her and everything to do with him.", "opening_hook": "Researchers showed men the exact same video of a woman having a neutral conversation. The men who rated themselves as attractive saw flirtation. The men who didn't? They saw politeness. Same woman. Same video. Completely different realities. Your brain isn't detecting her interest \u2014 it's projecting your ego.", "critical_success_factor": "The opening must land the specific finding \u2014 same video, different perceived reality \u2014 immediately. If viewers don't viscerally get that this is about THEM misperceiving, not about abstract psychology, the video fails.", "structure": "1) THE STUDY: Same video, different realities \u2014 how self-rated attractiveness predicted perceived interest more than actual signals. 2) THE MECHANISM: Why ambiguous signals + ego = false pattern matching (your brain fills gaps with self-concept). 3) THE DOUBLE DISTORTION: Women's appearance also biases judgment, creating compounding errors. 4) THE UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTH: Confidence doesn't help you read reality \u2014 it helps you misread it confidently. What this means for every 'signal' you've ever interpreted.", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong 'wait, what?' hook with a specific research finding, perfect channel fit ('your brain is lying'), multiple depth layers, evergreen topic, and broad audience appeal \u2014 this is exactly what the pipeline should surface.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: Academic psychology research and resources
suggested_title: Psychology's Most Famous Effect Can't Be Measured
verdict: WORTH_MAKING
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Strong counterintuition. Everyone thinks they know what cognitive dissonance is. Learning it can't be measured creates genuine 'wait, what?' - though it's more intellectual curiosity than visceral shock."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The original post has only 4 comments and low engagement. However, cognitive dissonance as a topic has massive search volume and cultural penetration. The specific 'unmeasurable' angle is underexplored."}, "content_gap": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "No one is making this video. Every cognitive dissonance video explains the concept as settled science. This is a completely unoccupied angle."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Strong depth. Can explore Festinger's original methodology, the construct validity problem in psychology, what we actually observe vs. what we infer, and practical implications for self-awareness."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Completely evergreen. This isn't tied to any news event. The philosophical problem of measuring internal states is permanent."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Anyone who's ever used 'cognitive dissonance' in conversation (huge group) will find this relevant. Slightly limited by requiring baseline familiarity with the term."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Thousands of videos explain what cognitive dissonance IS. None question whether it's actually measurable or whether the concept works the way pop psychology claims.", "missing_angle": "This video doesn't explain cognitive dissonance - it interrogates whether cognitive dissonance as commonly understood is even a real thing that can be detected, turning a 'thing everyone knows' into a 'wait, do we actually know this?'", "target_audience": "Someone who just used 'cognitive dissonance' in a conversation to sound smart, and is now wondering if they actually understand what it means", "opening_hook": "Cognitive dissonance might be the most referenced concept in all of psychology. You've heard it explained a hundred times. But here's something strange: when I went looking for how scientists actually measure it - like, the test you'd take to see if you're experiencing cognitive dissonance right now - I found something I wasn't expecting. There isn't one.", "critical_success_factor": "The video must avoid feeling like it's debunking cognitive dissonance entirely (which would be wrong) while still delivering the genuine surprise that it's not measurable the way people assume. The nuance is: the phenomenon is real, but our confidence in understanding it is overblown.", "structure": "1. Setup: 'You've heard of cognitive dissonance. You've probably used it in conversation. But can you actually experience it?' 2. The Discovery: A researcher tries to measure it and finds... no validated scale exists. 3. Why This Matters: The difference between observing effects and measuring states - what psychology actually knows vs. what it claims. 4. The Reframe: How to think about your own rationalizations now that you know the concept is shakier than advertised.", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong content gap and perfect channel fit - this is exactly 'your brain is lying' territory. Curiosity is solid but not undeniable (more intellectual than visceral), and demand signal from the source post is weak. Needs a punchy execution to land but the angle is genuinely novel.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: Neuroscience of mood, addiction, and brain interventions
suggested_title: Dopamine Detox Is a Lie. It Works Anyway.
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The paradox is genuinely compelling: something scientifically false producing real results. It challenges both the skeptics ('it's debunked') and the believers ('it's about dopamine'). Most people have encountered this debate and have unresolved tension about it."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "21 comments on a question post in r/Neuropsychology is strong engagement for that sub. More importantly, 'dopamine detox' has been a recurring cultural phenomenon with millions of views across platforms \u2014 the debate is evergreen and unsettled. People are actively confused about this."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Existing content falls into two camps: (1) debunking videos that say 'it's fake, stop doing it' or (2) productivity gurus promoting it uncritically. Nobody has owned the 'it's fake but it works, here's why' angle with the 'your brain is lying to you' frame."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Three clear layers: myth-busting, actual mechanism, meta-insight about self-deception. Each layer takes 60+ seconds to explain properly. The reveal is satisfying because it validates experience while correcting understanding."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Dopamine detox will keep getting recommended and debunked forever. The confusion is structural \u2014 it's built into how the concept spread. This video will remain relevant as long as people try dopamine detoxes and then Google whether they're real."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Anyone who has tried to cut back on phone/social media/gaming has encountered this concept. It's not niche neuroscience \u2014 it's mainstream self-improvement discourse. The hook works whether you've done a detox or just heard about them."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Plenty of videos debunk dopamine detox as pseudoscience. Some explain what dopamine actually does. But almost none answer the actual question people have: 'If it's fake, why did it work for me?' They leave viewers feeling gaslit about their own experience.", "missing_angle": "This video validates the experience while correcting the explanation. 'You weren't wrong that it worked. You were wrong about WHY it worked. And that gap \u2014 between what happened and what you thought happened \u2014 is your brain lying to you in real time.'", "target_audience": "Someone who did a dopamine detox last month, felt genuinely better, then read an article saying it's pseudoscience and now feels confused and slightly foolish \u2014 they want to know if their improvement was real or imagined.", "opening_hook": "Dopamine detox is complete pseudoscience. Dopamine doesn't deplete. You can't 'reset' your receptors by avoiding your phone. Every neuroscientist will tell you this. So why did it actually work when I tried it? Here's what's really happening in your brain \u2014 and it's weirder than the lie.", "critical_success_factor": "The video must validate viewers' experience first before correcting their explanation. If it feels like 'you're dumb for believing in dopamine detox,' it fails. It should feel like 'you were right that something worked, but your brain lied to you about the mechanism \u2014 and that's fascinating, not embarrassing.'", "structure": "1. THE DEBUNK: What dopamine actually does (it's not a pleasure chemical that depletes) \u2014 establish scientific credibility. 2. THE PARADOX: But wait, people report real improvements. Are they lying? Placebo? No \u2014 something real is happening. 3. THE REAL MECHANISM: Habit loops, attention hijacking, cue-response patterns. You broke the autopilot, not refilled a tank. 4. THE META-INSIGHT: Your brain told you the wrong story about your own improvement. The fact that 'dopamine depletion' felt true is itself proof of how your brain lies to you. You got better and misunderstood why \u2014 and that's the most common form of self-deception there is.", "verdict_reasoning": "A genuine paradox that millions of people have personally experienced, with a satisfying explanation that directly serves the channel's 'your brain is lying to you' positioning \u2014 this is exactly what the channel should own.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: Neuropsychology learning resources and professional tools
suggested_title: Why Doctors Hide Your Brain Scans From You
verdict: WORTH_MAKING
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The claim that seeing your own medical scan can make you sicker is genuinely counterintuitive. Most people believe more information is always better. This directly contradicts that assumption with a concrete medical example."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "114 comments on unpopularopinion suggests real debate and engagement. However, this is one post in a cluster otherwise full of textbook requests. The signal is concentrated but not cross-sourced."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Medical channels discuss incidentalomas but frame it as 'doctors shouldn't over-order tests.' No one has made the patient-facing 'your scan can hurt you' video with the self-deception framing."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Multiple research studies, the nocebo effect, incidentaloma statistics, ethical tension between transparency and harm\u2014this has substantial depth beyond the initial hook."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "People will always get MRIs and anxiety about medical imaging is permanent. This isn't tied to any news event."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Anyone who has ever had medical imaging\u2014or will\u2014can relate. That's most adults. The hook works even if you've never had an MRI because you've had moments of 'I Googled my symptoms and now I'm dying.'"}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "There's medical content about unnecessary imaging and incidentalomas, but it's framed for medical professionals ('overtesting') not for patients. No major explainer frames this as 'seeing your own scan can hurt you' from the patient's perspective with the self-deception angle.", "missing_angle": "This video frames the issue as YOUR BRAIN LYING TO YOU through visual evidence. The scan feels like objective truth, but your interpretation machinery corrupts it. This is classic 'Your Brain Is Lying' territory\u2014you think you're getting information, but you're getting a weapon against yourself.", "target_audience": "Someone who just got an MRI and is anxiously waiting for results, googling what every shadow on the image might mean\u2014or someone who's been shown their scan and is now worried about something the doctor said was 'probably fine.'", "opening_hook": "A doctor recently argued that patients should NEVER see their own MRI results. Not because the results are bad\u2014but because seeing them at all causes harm. Your brain scan, they claim, can actually make you sicker. Here's why that might be true.", "critical_success_factor": "The video must make viewers feel SMARTER about their own psychology, not manipulated by doctors. The framing cannot be 'doctors are hiding things from you' (conspiracy) but rather 'your perception system has a bug that medical images exploit.' The enemy is your own interpretation machinery, not the medical system.", "structure": "1. THE COUNTERINTUITIVE CLAIM: Doctors arguing you shouldn't see your own scans (30 sec). 2. THE MECHANISM: How your brain interprets visual 'proof' of damage and creates symptoms to match\u2014the nocebo effect visualized (90 sec). 3. INCIDENTALOMAS: The normal abnormalities that look terrifying but mean nothing, and why seeing them changes outcomes (90 sec). 4. THE ETHICS: Patient autonomy vs. harm reduction, and what this means for how you should approach your own medical information (60 sec).", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong hook with excellent depth and perfect channel fit, but needs research verification on the specific studies before committing\u2014the underlying science is real but the framing needs to be bulletproof.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: Grief psychology and trauma processing
suggested_title: Why Losing Your Dog Can Hurt More Than Losing Your Dad
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The 20% statistic genuinely violates expectations. Most people have a strong intuition that human loss is 'objectively' worse. The specific number forces engagement - you can't just dismiss it as 'some people.' It's not a 5, because it doesn't create an unexplainable paradox - you can roughly intuit why (close to pet, distant from family) - but the scale surprises."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "58 comments on r/psychology is strong engagement. The topic (pet grief) has universal reach - most adults have lost a pet or will. This isn't niche. The specific framing (comparison to human loss) is what creates the controversy/discussion."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Therapeutic 'pet loss support' content is everywhere. Explanatory content with the specific statistic and the 'your brain is lying about grief hierarchy' framing appears to be missing. The adversarial angle is unoccupied."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Multiple layers: the statistic, the attachment science, the social shame mechanism, the reframe. The reveal (grief tracks attachment, not species) is satisfying and non-obvious to most people. Not a one-sentence explainer."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Pet ownership is universal and permanent. Grief is permanent. No news hook - this works in any month of any year."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Pet owners are ~70% of US households. Grief is universal. The hook works even for people who haven't lost a pet yet - it makes them think about their current attachments differently."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Generic 'pet loss is valid' content exists but frames it as permission-giving ('it's okay to grieve your pet'). This misses the mechanism - WHY it hits this hard - and doesn't have the specific statistic that creates the cognitive dissonance. Most content is therapeutic/validating rather than explanatory.", "missing_angle": "The adversarial framing: your social programming tells you pet grief should be lesser, and that programming is lying to you. The video doesn't just validate - it exposes the lie and explains the mechanism (attachment vs. category).", "target_audience": "Someone who has felt ashamed about how hard they took a pet's death, or someone currently grieving a pet who feels they 'shouldn't' be this devastated, or someone who dismissed another person's pet grief and now wonders if they were wrong", "opening_hook": "In grief studies, researchers ask people who have lost both a pet and a human family member: which was worse? You'd expect maybe 5% to say the pet, as outliers, people who had distant families. The actual number is 20%. One in five. And when they measured the symptoms - the intrusive thoughts, the physical pain, the inability to function - they were clinically indistinguishable. Your brain doesn't know the difference.", "critical_success_factor": "Must present the 20% statistic early and let it create discomfort before explaining. The explanation should feel like relief, not lecture. Viewer must feel validated, not educated-at.", "structure": "1) THE STATISTIC: Open with the study finding - 20% say pet loss was worse. Let that sit. Clinically identical symptoms. 2) THE ASSUMPTION: Why this feels wrong - the social programming that human relationships are 'objectively' more meaningful. 3) THE MECHANISM: Grief intensity tracks attachment quality (daily rituals, physical presence, unconditional relationship) not species category. Your brain doesn't grieve titles, it grieves bonds. 4) THE SHAME LAYER: The real damage isn't the grief - it's the shame your brain adds because you 'shouldn't' feel this way. That's the lie this video exposes.", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong specific hook (the 20% stat), clear channel fit (your brain lies about grief hierarchies), validated emotional payoff, evergreen topic, and the angle isn't occupied - most pet grief content is therapeutic validation, not mechanistic explanation.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: Cognitive training and dementia prevention
suggested_title: Your Brain Is Destroying Itself to Help You Hear
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The paradox is real and surprising. Most people genuinely believe 'cognitive challenge = protection' \u2014 this directly contradicts that in a way that demands resolution. Not quite a 5 because some viewers might not hold the 'challenge is protective' belief strongly enough for the contradiction to land."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The Reddit post has 4 comments and was posed as a question in r/Neuropsychology \u2014 modest engagement but from a sophisticated audience that noticed the paradox. Not viral, but the question itself demonstrates the curiosity gap exists."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Health content covers hearing loss + dementia frequently, but always as 'here's a risk factor' without addressing WHY it's counterintuitive. No one owns the 'paradox resolution' angle. The 'Your Brain Is Lying' framing is completely unoccupied."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Multiple layers: the paradox, the mechanism (depletion vs. challenge), resource allocation, social isolation compounding, the broader principle about chronic vs. acute cognitive load, and actionable implications. This is a 5-7 minute video easily."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is about how brains work, not a news story. The hearing loss research has been consistent for years and isn't going away. The broader principle (not all effort strengthens you) is timeless."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Everyone either has aging parents, knows someone with hearing issues, or will eventually face this themselves. The 'effort should help but doesn't' hook works even if you don't care about hearing specifically \u2014 it's a principle about how brains work."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "There's plenty of content about hearing loss causing dementia (it's been in health news), but it's all framed as 'hearing loss bad, get hearing aids.' No one explains WHY it's bad when the brain is supposedly protected by challenge. The paradox is never addressed \u2014 it's treated as obvious when it's actually deeply counterintuitive.", "missing_angle": "This video treats the viewer as smart enough to notice the contradiction. It doesn't just say 'hearing loss causes dementia' \u2014 it explains why that seems wrong, then resolves the apparent paradox. The 'your brain is lying to you' angle: your instinct that straining harder = working harder = getting stronger is WRONG for this specific type of strain.", "target_audience": "Someone in their 30s-40s noticing their parents asking 'what?' more often, or someone who's been putting off getting their own hearing checked because it seems like 'no big deal' \u2014 this video makes them realize the stakes are much higher than they thought", "opening_hook": "Every time you strain to hear someone, your brain is working overtime. Processing degraded audio, filling in gaps, reconstructing meaning from fragments. That sounds like exactly the kind of cognitive workout that should protect against dementia. But it doesn't. Untreated hearing loss is one of the largest modifiable risk factors for Alzheimer's. Your brain is literally destroying itself trying to help you hear.", "critical_success_factor": "The opening must make the viewer feel the contradiction viscerally \u2014 they need to think 'wait, that SHOULD work, why doesn't it?' If the paradox doesn't land in the first 15 seconds, the whole video loses its engine.", "structure": "1. THE PARADOX: Open with the contradiction \u2014 cognitive challenge protects the brain, hearing strain IS cognitive challenge, so why does it cause dementia? 2. THE MECHANISM: Explain depletion vs. strengthening \u2014 not all effort is equal. The brain is exhausted, not exercised. 3. THE COMPOUNDING FACTOR: Social isolation from hearing loss removes the most protective cognitive input: conversation. Double damage. 4. THE BROADER PRINCIPLE: This applies beyond hearing \u2014 chronic multitasking, constant low-grade stress, always being 'on' \u2014 your brain mistakes exhaustion for exercise. 5. THE FIX: Hearing aids aren't vanity; they're neuroprotection. But more importantly \u2014 recognize when your brain is being depleted vs. challenged.", "verdict_reasoning": "A genuine paradox that breaks the viewer's mental model, directly fits the 'your brain is lying to you' channel identity, has real depth, and the curiosity gap is undeniable \u2014 you cannot hear 'effort that damages instead of strengthens' without needing to know why.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: Behavioral economics and financial decision-making biases
suggested_title: Your Brain Only Fears Losing Money When You're Already Stressed
verdict: NEEDS_RESEARCH
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The idea that a 'fundamental' human trait is actually a context-dependent state is genuinely surprising. 'Your brain has a switch you don't know about' creates real curiosity."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The source post has low engagement (score 0.842, 0 comments), but it's from an academic sub. The 401k post with 801 comments shows massive interest in financial decision-making biases. Cross-signal exists but indirect."}, "content_gap": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Searched my knowledge for videos on 'optimism threshold' or loss aversion as context-dependent \u2014 this specific angle appears completely unoccupied. Standard loss aversion content is everywhere; this framing is nowhere."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The study provides real data (275,000 households, 8 years, India). The mechanism is explainable. The personal implication is clear. Multiple layers available. Only slight concern: the original research may need verification for video production."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "How your brain makes financial decisions is permanently relevant. Not tied to any news cycle or trend."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Anyone who makes money decisions (everyone) can relate. 'Your confident feeling is a warning sign' works even for people who don't care about behavioral economics."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Tons of content on loss aversion as a static concept. Almost nothing on the context-dependency of loss aversion or the optimism threshold research specifically. The 'loss aversion has an on-off switch' angle is untouched.", "missing_angle": "Framing loss aversion as a variable state rather than a fixed trait, and revealing the counterintuitive insight that confidence about money decisions is itself a warning sign", "target_audience": "Someone who just got a raise or bonus and is thinking about investing it, feeling confident about their financial decisions \u2014 this video reveals they might be in the exact mental state that makes bad calls feel right", "opening_hook": "You've been told your whole life that humans hate losing more than they love winning. That losing $100 hurts twice as much as winning $100 feels good. It's in every psychology textbook, every investing guide. There's just one problem: for most of the decisions you actually make, it's not true. A study of 275,000 households just found that loss aversion has an on-off switch \u2014 and your brain flips it without telling you.", "critical_success_factor": "The opening must make the viewer believe they understand loss aversion, so the reveal that it has an on-off switch feels like genuine news \u2014 not a nuance, but a reversal", "structure": ["THE LIE: Open with loss aversion as 'settled science' \u2014 textbook explanation, famous examples, the 2:1 ratio everyone cites", "THE SWITCH: Reveal the 275,000 household study \u2014 loss aversion appears and disappears based on financial stress levels. Introduce 'optimism threshold'", "THE TRAP: When you're comfortable, your brain doesn't just neutral-out \u2014 it becomes actively risk-seeking. Your confidence IS the blindness", "THE FIX: How to know which mode you're in. Counter-intuitive advice: mild financial anxiety might be protective. Create a decision-making check for viewers"], "verdict_reasoning": "Strong hook perfectly aligned with channel identity, but the source study needs verification \u2014 the Reddit post only provides a summary, and production requires confirming the actual research, the sample methodology, and whether 'optimism threshold' is the correct term from the paper.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: ADHD outcomes, diagnosis patterns, and treatment effects
suggested_title: Why Motherhood Breaks Your ADHD Disguise
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The 'surge in diagnoses after childbirth' is genuinely counterintuitive\u2014most people assume ADHD is diagnosed in childhood or not at all. The idea that parenthood REVEALS rather than CAUSES something creates a real 'wait, how?' moment. Not quite a 5 because some viewers may have already encountered the 'women get diagnosed later' narrative."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "70 comments on the motherhood post, plus strong engagement across multiple ADHD posts in this cluster. The 175-comment cannabis post shows high general interest in ADHD topics. Cross-source count is only 1, but the consistent engagement across r/psychology indicates genuine sustained interest."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Searched mentally for 'motherhood reveals ADHD' content\u2014there are personal TikToks and general articles, but no definitive explainer video that owns this specific angle with the 'your brain lied to you' framing. The psychological mechanism angle is underexplored."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Multiple layers to explore: the specific compensation strategies, why parenthood destroys them, the broader gender gap in diagnosis, the psychological experience of late diagnosis. The core reveal takes at least 90 seconds to properly explain and has genuine 'oh that's why' satisfaction."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is about human psychology and brain function, not tied to any news event. Women will continue having children and continue being diagnosed with ADHD afterward. The self-deception angle is permanently relevant."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "Primary audience is women, particularly mothers or women considering motherhood, with ADHD or suspecting it. That's a large audience but not universal. Men and non-parents might click out of general interest but aren't the core hook. Solid niche appeal, not mass appeal."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Plenty of content exists on 'ADHD in women' and 'late diagnosis ADHD' but it's mostly general awareness content or personal stories without the specific mechanism. Nobody has framed it as 'your brain systematically lied to you for decades and motherhood exposed the lie.' The self-deception angle is unexploited.", "missing_angle": "Framing the compensation strategies as an active deception by your own brain\u2014not just 'women present differently' but 'your mind built an elaborate disguise and convinced you it was your real face.' The adversarial framing turns a medical explainer into a revelation about self-knowledge.", "target_audience": "A 34-year-old woman scrolling at 11pm while her toddler finally sleeps, who has always felt like she's working twice as hard as everyone else to stay organized, who constantly feels like she's 'faking' being a functional adult, and who just saw herself in every word of this video.", "opening_hook": "For thirty years, Sarah thought she was just 'bad at organization.' She had systems. Calendars. Reminders for her reminders. Then she had a baby\u2014and within eighteen months, she was sitting in a psychiatrist's office being told she'd had ADHD her entire life. She wasn't alone. Diagnoses among new mothers are surging. Not because babies cause ADHD. Because babies expose it.", "critical_success_factor": "The viewer must feel the compensation strategies are RELATABLE before learning they're pathological. If we explain ADHD compensation clinically, it's a medical video. If we first make the viewer think 'wait, I do all of those things,' THEN reveal it might be ADHD, they experience the same unmasking the video describes.", "structure": "1. THE PATTERN: Open with the surge in diagnoses among new mothers\u2014statistics, the 'wait that's backwards' reaction. 2. THE DISGUISE: Explain how ADHD compensation works in women\u2014the scaffolding, the systems, the exhausting work of appearing neurotypical. 3. THE COLLAPSE: Why parenthood specifically destroys every scaffold simultaneously\u2014the perfect storm of sleep deprivation, schedule chaos, and cognitive overload. 4. THE REVEAL: What it means that your brain convinced you this was 'just your personality'\u2014the deeper implications for self-knowledge and the lie you've been living.", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong curiosity hook with perfect channel fit\u2014'your brain systematically deceived you about your own neurology for decades' is exactly the adversarial self-deception angle that defines 'Your Brain Is Lying,' with confirmed depth and high engagement signal.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: Philosophy of consciousness and perception
suggested_title: Your Brain Has a Pre-Programmed Death Sequence
verdict: WORTH_MAKING
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The structural consistency of NDEs is genuinely counterintuitive. Most people assume near-death = random chaos. Learning there's a PATTERN creates real 'wait, what?' Docking from 5 because NDEs aren't novel territory - people know they exist, just not about the consistency."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The specific post has low engagement (score 0.954, 1 comment) but NDE content broadly performs well. The subreddit (r/Neuropsychology) is niche but the topic transcends the subreddit. Moderate signal - people are interested in death/consciousness broadly."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "NDE content is saturated in supernatural vs. skeptic framing. The 'brain as unreliable narrator' angle - using NDEs as evidence of constructed experience rather than afterlife debate - is genuinely underserved. No major channel owns this specific frame."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Extremely deep. Can explore neuroscience, evolution, philosophy of mind, the 'controlled hallucination' theory of consciousness. Multiple reveals possible. The video could go 3 minutes (tight) or 10 minutes (comprehensive) without padding."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Death is permanent. The mystery of consciousness is permanent. No news hook required. This works identically in 5 years."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Everyone will die. Everyone wonders what dying feels like. The hook works even for people with zero interest in neuroscience or philosophy. Docking from 5 because some viewers may bounce due to death-anxiety."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Tons of NDE content exists but it's split into two camps: (1) spiritual/supernatural framing ('proof of afterlife') or (2) dismissive skeptic framing ('just oxygen deprivation'). Neither addresses the STRUCTURAL consistency as the central mystery. The 'your brain is lying to you' angle - treating this as evidence of how constructed ALL experience is - is unexplored.", "missing_angle": "This video treats the NDE not as evidence for/against afterlife, but as evidence that your brain is running programs you never consented to. The hook isn't 'what happens after death' - it's 'your brain has a death protocol and you can't access it.' It's about the brain as an unreliable narrator, not about spirituality.", "target_audience": "Someone lying in bed at 1am who just watched a documentary about the brain and is now spiraling into existential questions about what happens when they die", "opening_hook": "Here's something that should unsettle you: People who nearly die report the same experience. Not similar - the SAME. Tunnel. Light. Life flashing. Dead relatives waiting. Across cultures. Across religions. Across centuries. Your brain appears to have a pre-programmed death sequence. And nobody knows why.", "critical_success_factor": "The video must present the structural consistency with SPECIFIC examples (ideally 3-4 different accounts showing the same sequence) before explaining it. If viewers don't viscerally feel the eeriness of the pattern, the reveal has nothing to land on. The hook is the PATTERN, not the explanation.", "structure": "1. THE PATTERN - Establish that NDEs aren't random but follow a specific sequence (tunnel > light > life review > deceased relatives) with cross-cultural consistency. 2. THE PROBLEM - Why can't randomness explain this? Introduce the mystery: if neurons are just dying chaotically, why the same order? 3. THE THEORY - The 'shutdown protocol' hypothesis: neurons lose oxygen in predictable order, creating predictable experiences. Your brain has a death script. 4. THE IMPLICATION - If your dying brain can construct this much coherent experience, what does that say about your living experience? Connect to 'your brain is lying' channel thesis.", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong hook with excellent depth and perfect channel fit, but needs research to nail the neuroscience claims - specifically the 'shutdown sequence' hypothesis needs sourcing. Not MAKE_NOW because the specific neurological mechanisms need verification before scripting.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: Intelligence measurement and IQ debates
suggested_title: If IQ Can't Change, How Is AI Lowering It?
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The logical contradiction is genuinely unresolvable without explanation. Anyone who has encountered both claims (most educated adults) will feel the friction. Not quite a 5 because it requires having heard both claims to feel the paradox."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "55 comments on the source post is solid. More importantly, 'AI making us dumber' is a 2024-2025 zeitgeist topic with massive cultural conversation. The intersection of AI anxiety + IQ debates is high-demand territory."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Searched mentally for videos that frame this as a CONTRADICTION rather than taking one side. Haven't seen it. The paradox-as-hook angle appears unoccupied."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is rich territory: heritability misconceptions, Flynn Effect, cognitive offloading research, motivated reasoning about intelligence narratives. Multiple layers of reveal. Could easily be 6-8 minutes."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The AI-lowering-IQ headlines are 2024-2025 specific. The underlying content (heritability, Flynn Effect, how contradictory beliefs coexist) is evergreen, but the hook's urgency will fade as AI anxiety normalizes."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "IQ is a topic everyone has opinions about. AI anxiety is universal in 2025. The hook doesn't require specialist knowledge \u2014 anyone who's heard 'IQ is genetic' and 'AI is making us dumb' (most people) is already primed."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Plenty of 'Is AI making us dumber?' hot takes exist, and plenty of 'IQ explained' edu-content exists. But nobody has framed the CONTRADICTION between these two mainstream narratives as the central puzzle. The existing content treats each claim in isolation.", "missing_angle": "This video makes the viewer realize they were holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously without noticing \u2014 the exact 'your brain is lying to you' realization that defines the channel. It's not 'here's what IQ is' or 'here's what AI does to your brain' \u2014 it's 'here's proof you'll believe anything if it's said confidently enough.'", "target_audience": "Someone who just read a headline about AI making kids dumber and felt a vague unease \u2014 they half-believe it but also half-remember being told IQ is genetic. They're scrolling at 11pm with that contradiction sitting unresolved in their mind.", "opening_hook": "Gen Z is officially the first generation dumber than their parents. That's what the headlines say \u2014 AI is lowering IQ scores. But wait. We've also been told for decades that IQ is fixed. It's genetic. You can't really change it. So which is it? Because your brain accepted both of these facts without noticing they're mutually exclusive.", "critical_success_factor": "The opening must make the viewer feel the contradiction viscerally \u2014 not just intellectually explain it. They need to think 'wait, I DID believe both of those things' within the first 15 seconds. If it feels like a lecture about IQ research, it fails.", "structure": "1. THE CONTRADICTION: Present both claims as 'facts' you've probably accepted, then show they're mutually exclusive. 2. THE HERITABILITY LIE: Explain what heritability actually means and why 'IQ is fixed' is a useful misreading. 3. THE FLYNN PROBLEM: IQ scores have been RISING for 100 years \u2014 another fact that breaks the 'fixed' narrative. 4. WHY YOU BELIEVED BOTH: Each narrative serves different anxieties (genetic determinism comforts meritocracy believers; AI-makes-us-dumb comforts tech skeptics). Your brain accepted whichever was useful in the moment.", "verdict_reasoning": "A timely paradox that directly exploits the channel's 'your brain holds contradictory beliefs' positioning, with strong depth, high demand signal, and a clear content gap.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: Technology dependency and skill atrophy
suggested_title: Your Car's Safety Features Are Making You a Worse Driver
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Most drivers with modern cars have experienced safety features activating. The idea that these features are degrading their driving ability is genuinely counterintuitive \u2014 it contradicts the entire marketing premise. Strong 'wait, am I getting worse?' moment."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "90 comments on the Reddit post shows engagement, but it's in unpopularopinion which skews toward contrarian takes rather than genuine curiosity. The signal is moderate \u2014 people care about driving and technology, but this specific angle hasn't been validated as a search/curiosity driver."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Lots of content exists about driver assist technology and about skill atrophy in general. But the specific framing \u2014 your brain is using these systems to justify not paying attention \u2014 is underexplored. Car channels discuss this technically; psychology channels discuss skill atrophy abstractly. The intersection is open."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This topic has real depth: neuroscience of skill maintenance, aviation automation research, the broader principle of assistance-induced dependency, implications for autonomous vehicles. The reveal takes time to properly explain and has multiple surprising layers."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Driver assist systems are only becoming more prevalent. This topic becomes MORE relevant over time, not less. No news hook required."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Anyone who drives a modern car is the audience. That's extremely broad. Even non-drivers can relate to the principle (GPS, spell-check, etc.). The only limitation is it requires car ownership to fully resonate."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "There's generic 'technology is making us dumber' content and car-enthusiast complaints about electronic nannies. But most of it is either nostalgic gatekeeping ('real drivers use manual') or tech-fear mongering. Nobody is framing this through the specific lens of how YOUR BRAIN adapts to remove the need for skills when consequences disappear.", "missing_angle": "Framing this as your brain systematically betraying you by optimizing for laziness \u2014 not as a critique of technology, but as a revelation about how your own cognition works. The car is just the example; the insight is about how your brain decides what skills to maintain.", "target_audience": "Someone driving home who just felt their lane assist vibrate the steering wheel, and for a split second wondered 'wait, was I drifting?' \u2014 that moment of unease about their own attention", "opening_hook": "Lane assist just saved you from drifting into the next lane. You weren't even aware you were drifting. And that right there \u2014 that moment where the car caught something you missed \u2014 is exactly how you're becoming a driver who can't drive without it.", "critical_success_factor": "The opening must make the viewer feel the specific moment of lane assist activating and immediately connect it to the unsettling question: 'wait, am I actually paying less attention because I know it's there?' If that visceral recognition doesn't land in the first 15 seconds, the rest won't work.", "structure": ["THE MOMENT: Open with the visceral experience of lane assist activating \u2014 the slight steering wheel vibration, the momentary confusion about whether you were actually drifting. Plant the question: what just happened in your brain?", "THE MECHANISM: Explain how skills require feedback loops to maintain. Your brain is constantly pruning capabilities it doesn't use. When the car catches your mistakes, your brain never processes the mistake \u2014 so it never reinforces the correction skill.", "THE EVIDENCE: Aviation automation research showing pilots perform worse in manual emergencies the more they rely on autopilot. Transfer this to driving \u2014 the exact same cognitive principle applies.", "THE BROADER PATTERN: This isn't just cars. GPS and navigation skills. Spell-check and spelling. Calculators and mental math. Your brain is constantly looking for ways to offload effort, and it doesn't distinguish between 'assistance' and 'replacement.'"], "verdict_reasoning": "Strong counterintuitive hook that directly exploits the channel's 'your brain is lying to you' positioning, with genuine depth from aviation research and neuroscience, targeting the massive audience of people who drive modern cars.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: Expertise as cognitive trap in changing environments
suggested_title: Why Experts Fail First When The Rules Change
verdict: WORTH_MAKING
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The claim 'experts learn slower' directly contradicts assumed truth. Most people believe expertise = faster learning. This creates genuine cognitive dissonance that demands resolution."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The r/cogsci post has 0 comments, which is weak direct signal. However, the 542-comment post about canceling plans shows this cluster has engagement, and the 'expert blindness' theme is perennial in business/self-improvement spaces. Medium demand."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Business content covers 'disruption' at company level. Psychology content covers 'cognitive bias' abstractly. Nothing specifically frames 'your expertise is deceiving you' as personal cognitive betrayal. The adversarial angle is unclaimed."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Research on entrenchment, functional fixedness, and expertise reversal effects is robust. Multiple real-world examples (Kodak, Blockbuster, Nokia). Mechanism is genuinely interesting to explain. Can easily fill 4-6 minutes."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is a permanent feature of human cognition, not tied to any news cycle. Will be relevant as long as the world keeps changing faster than experts can adapt."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Anyone who has ever felt dismissed by an 'expert' or wondered why smart people make obvious mistakes will relate. Not niche to any particular field."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Generic 'innovator's dilemma' business content exists but frames it as company-level strategy, not personal cognitive bias. 'Fixed vs growth mindset' content exists but doesn't explain WHY experts specifically fall into fixed patterns. Nothing frames this as 'your expertise is literally deceiving you' with the adversarial self-deception angle.", "missing_angle": "Framing expertise-blindness as a form of self-deception \u2014 your brain is lying to you BECAUSE you're good at something, not despite it. The channel's 'your brain betrays you' positioning makes this a perfect fit that generic business/psychology channels can't claim.", "target_audience": "Someone who just watched a senior colleague dismiss a new approach and wondered 'am I crazy or are they just... not seeing it?' \u2014 and now wants to understand why experience can create blindness", "opening_hook": "When Netflix started streaming, Blockbuster had 60,000 employees and decades of expertise in home entertainment. Netflix had 300. Within 4 years, Blockbuster was dead. Not because they were stupid \u2014 but because they knew too much.", "critical_success_factor": "The video must make viewers feel the personal relevance \u2014 not 'those companies failed' but 'this is happening to ME in my field right now.' The moment they think 'wait, what am I an expert in that might be blinding me?' is the moment the video succeeds.", "structure": ["Cold open: The Blockbuster/Netflix paradox \u2014 why did 60,000 experts lose to 300 beginners?", "The mechanism: Entrenchment explained \u2014 how expertise creates cognitive shortcuts that become traps", "The examples: Kodak invented digital cameras, Nokia dismissed smartphones, experts consistently miss disruptions", "The self-protection: How to notice when your own expertise is blinding you (the 'beginner question' technique)"], "verdict_reasoning": "Strong hook with clear channel fit, but demand signal is moderate (0 comments on source post) \u2014 this is a 'worth making' rather than 'make now' because we're inferring demand from thematic resonance rather than observing it directly.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: How biases distort our perception of information and reviews
suggested_title: One Fake Review Beats 100 Real Ones (Here's Why)
verdict: WORTH_MAKING
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The '1 vs 100' ratio is genuinely counterintuitive and specific. Most people have felt this but never seen it quantified. Not quite a 5 because it's confirming a suspicion rather than revealing something completely unknown."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "Low Reddit engagement on this specific post (score 0.908, 1 comment), but the 'Product reviews are useless now' post in r/unpopularopinion has 42 comments showing broader frustration with the topic. Cross-validation exists but isn't overwhelming."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Consumer protection content about fake reviews is everywhere, but the 'your brain is the vulnerability' angle specific to this channel's positioning is genuinely underserved. No major creator owns 'why your cognition makes you susceptible to review manipulation.'"}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Three clear layers: psychology, platform dynamics, practical defense. The reveal that fake reviews specifically target your threat-detection system adds genuine depth beyond 'reviews are sometimes fake.'"}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Online shopping and review anxiety are permanent features of modern life. This will be relevant as long as e-commerce exists."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Anyone who has ever hesitated on a purchase because of one bad review\u2014which is essentially everyone who shops online. Zero prior interest in psychology required."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Plenty of 'how to spot fake reviews' content exists, but it's framed as consumer tips, not as 'your brain is betraying you.' The adversarial framing\u2014that your own cognition is the vulnerability\u2014is underexplored. Most content says 'reviews are sometimes fake.' This says 'your brain is wired to overweight the fake ones specifically.'", "missing_angle": "Framing the viewer's OWN brain as the co-conspirator with bad actors. Not 'companies manipulate reviews' but 'your threat-detection system from 100,000 years ago is being exploited by a guy in a click farm, and you can't stop it without understanding the mechanism.'", "target_audience": "Someone with 12 browser tabs open, paralyzed between three nearly-identical products on Amazon because each has that ONE review that makes them nervous\u2014suddenly understanding they've been manipulated by their own threat-detection system.", "opening_hook": "You're about to buy something on Amazon. 4.8 stars. 3,000 reviews. Ninety-seven percent of people loved it. Then you see one review: 'Worst purchase of my life. Complete garbage.' And suddenly you're not sure anymore. Here's what's happening in your brain\u2014and why that one review might be lying to you.", "critical_success_factor": "The opening must recreate the FEELING of being stopped by a bad review before explaining why. If viewers don't viscerally recognize themselves in the first 10 seconds, the psychological explanation won't land.", "structure": "1. THE MOMENT: Recreate the experience of being stopped by one bad review (15 sec). 2. THE MECHANISM: Explain negativity bias and threat-detection as evolutionary survival tools (60 sec). 3. THE EXPLOITATION: How platforms, competitors, and bad actors specifically target this vulnerability\u2014the bad apple is often fake (90 sec). 4. THE DEFENSE: Practical signals that indicate a fake negative review, how to actually evaluate product pages (60 sec).", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong hook with specific ratio, good depth across psychology and platform dynamics, and universal audience appeal\u2014but demand signal is moderate and the core insight, while well-framed, isn't completely novel.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: Cultural psychology and group identity formation
suggested_title: Racists Are Slowly Destroying Their Own Minds
verdict: WORTH_MAKING
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The reversal is genuine \u2014 'hatred hurts the hater' contradicts the assumed payoff structure of prejudice. Most people have never considered that racism could be self-destructive for the racist. It's not a 5 because the concept of 'hate hurts the hater' exists as folk wisdom, even if the specific mechanism doesn't."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "73 comments on the psychology subreddit indicates strong engagement. The racism-as-self-harm angle touches on something people are actively trying to understand \u2014 why do prejudiced people seem so miserable? Cross-source isn't present but the Reddit signal is solid."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Searched memory for existing content on this angle \u2014 most racism content is either moral condemnation or sociological analysis. The 'racism damages the racist's own psychology' framing from a brain-science perspective is underexplored in short-form content."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Multiple layers: the finding itself, the cognitive load mechanism, the evolutionary mismatch, the ironic self-deception. Could easily fill 3-5 minutes with substance. The reveal requires explanation, not just statement."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is about fundamental psychology, not news. The mechanism doesn't change. Relevant as long as prejudice exists."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "Racism is a sensitive topic that some viewers will avoid. However, the 'self-deception damages you' framing is broadly applicable and the hook doesn't require the viewer to care about social justice specifically \u2014 it's about how your brain can trick you into self-harm."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Most content about racism focuses on the harm to targets (important but expected) or moralizes at the perpetrators. Nobody is explaining the self-inflicted cognitive damage of prejudice from a neuroscience/psychology angle. The 'your brain is lying to you' framing is absent.", "missing_angle": "This video frames prejudice not as a moral failing to be condemned but as a cognitive trap that harms the person holding it \u2014 shifting from 'you're bad' to 'you're sabotaging yourself.' It's the adversarial self-deception angle: your brain told you this worldview would protect you, but it's slowly destroying you.", "target_audience": "Someone scrolling who has wondered why certain relatives or former friends seem increasingly anxious and miserable as they've become more openly prejudiced \u2014 this explains the mechanism they've observed but couldn't articulate", "opening_hook": "Here's something nobody tells you about prejudice: it's supposed to make life simpler. Divide the world into us and them, feel superior, move on. But researchers tracked people's racist attitudes over years and found something the haters would never expect \u2014 the racism was slowly destroying their own mental health.", "critical_success_factor": "Must present the research credibly without moralizing \u2014 the power is in showing prejudice as self-defeating cognitive trap, not lecturing about why racism is bad. The viewer should think 'huh, that's a mechanism I never considered' not 'I'm being told racism is wrong again.'", "structure": "1) The assumed payoff of prejudice \u2014 why people think hatred 'works' for them (tribal belonging, simplified worldview, superiority). 2) The surprising finding \u2014 longitudinal data showing prejudice predicts increased distress in the prejudice-holder. 3) The mechanism \u2014 cognitive load of maintaining hostility, chronic threat activation, evolutionary mismatch. 4) The trap \u2014 your brain convinced you this would protect you, but it's slowly destroying you.", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong counterintuitive hook that fits the channel identity perfectly, good depth, but the topic sensitivity and need to verify the specific research claims before production make this a solid WORTH_MAKING rather than MAKE_NOW.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: Conformity, critical thinking, and how social/cognitive structures shape belief
suggested_title: Why Numbered Lists Make You Stop Thinking
verdict: WORTH_MAKING
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The observation is specific and verifiable in your own experience \u2014 you can test it right now by comparing how you react to bullet points vs numbered lists. It's not 'mind-blowing' but it's genuinely 'wait, I do that and I've never noticed.'"}, "demand_signal": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The source post has 18 comments, moderate engagement. The broader cluster about conformity/critical thinking has high engagement (374 comments on 'beliefs people follow blindly'). The specific angle is niche but the underlying anxiety (am I being manipulated?) is universal."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Searched for 'why rankings feel objective' and 'numbered lists psychology' \u2014 existing content is either academic papers or shallow listicle criticism. No one has made a punchy explainer specifically about the format-authority illusion."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The evolutionary hierarchy explanation is robust and citable (dominance hierarchies, authority heuristics). There are multiple layers: the phenomenon, the mechanism, the exploitation, the defense. Not a one-liner."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is about a permanent feature of human cognition, not a current event. Ranked lists and ratings will exist forever. The insight doesn't decay."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Everyone encounters rankings (product reviews, 'best of' lists, app ratings, numbered articles). You don't need to care about psychology or conformity to be hooked \u2014 you just need to have ever read a Top 10 list."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "There's content about 'how listicles manipulate you' but it focuses on clickbait tactics (curiosity gaps, odd numbers). There's content about cognitive biases but it's academic. Nothing specifically names this phenomenon: that ranking identical information changes how critically you evaluate it.", "missing_angle": "This video treats the *format* of information as a manipulation tool, not the content. Most 'you're being manipulated' content focuses on what you're told. This focuses on how it's arranged \u2014 which is more insidious because you can fact-check content but you can't easily notice format effects.", "target_audience": "Someone scrolling Reddit who just accepted a 'Top 5 Best X' list without questioning it, then realizes they do this constantly \u2014 with product ratings, app store rankings, article headlines with numbers. They want to understand why they keep falling for this.", "opening_hook": "Here are three ideas about how to fix traffic. [Shows bullet points, viewer mentally debates] Now here they are ranked best to worst. [Shows numbered list] Notice how you suddenly stopped arguing? That's not a coincidence. Numbered lists are hijacking a bug in your brain.", "critical_success_factor": "The opening demonstration must land \u2014 the viewer must feel their own critical thinking shut off when the ranked version appears. If that moment doesn't hit, the rest of the video is just theory. Consider using genuinely debatable ideas (e.g., controversial topics) where the contrast is stark.", "structure": "1. OPEN: Present identical ideas two ways (bullets, then ranked) \u2014 demonstrate the effect live. 2. NAME IT: 'Hierarchy authority bias' \u2014 your brain treats format as signal. 3. EXPLAIN WHY: Evolutionary hierarchy processing (dominance, authority heuristics, borrowed credibility). 4. SHOW EXPLOITATION: Product ratings, Top 10 lists, 'studies rank X as #1' rhetoric. 5. GIVE THE DEFENSE: Re-present ranked info as unordered; ask 'who decided this order and why?' before accepting rankings.", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong specific hook with genuine 'wait, I do that' recognition, good depth, clear channel fit (your brain's format-processing betraying your critical thinking), but not quite undeniable enough for MAKE_NOW \u2014 the phenomenon is noticeable but subtle.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: Memory access, identity continuity, and cognitive architecture
suggested_title: You've Lost Thoughts You'll Never Know You Had
verdict: WORTH_MAKING
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The specific framing\u2014'not forgotten, impossible to remember'\u2014is genuinely counterintuitive. Most people have never considered that there's a category of their own thoughts they're structurally locked out of. It's personal (everyone has a past self) and unresolvable without explanation."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The post has a 0.982 score but only 6 comments\u2014moderate engagement. However, the question format and the philosophical depth suggest this is the kind of thing people think about but don't often see articulated. Not viral numbers, but the specificity of engagement (philosophical discussion in TrueAskReddit) is promising."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Memory content is crowded. But THIS specific angle\u2014thoughts as requiring a specific cognitive OS that gets deprecated\u2014I haven't seen. Most memory content is 'how to remember better' or 'why you forget.' This is 'why some things are unrememberable by design.'"}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Multiple layers: the reconstruction theory of memory, identity continuity questions, specific examples (childhood mental states, pre-trauma perspectives), and implications for what 'you' even means over time. This easily fills 4-6 minutes."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is about the fundamental architecture of human cognition. It will be relevant as long as humans have memories and identities."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Everyone has a past self they can't fully access. You don't need to care about neuroscience or philosophy\u2014you just need to have ever tried to remember what it felt like to be younger and realized you can't actually get back there."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Plenty of content on memory and forgetting, some on the 'self' being an illusion. But nothing I've seen frames it as 'there are thoughts you've had that are now permanently unreachable'\u2014most memory content focuses on retrieving what you've lost, not on the category of losses that are structurally irretrievable.", "missing_angle": "This video frames memory loss not as failure but as incompatibility. You didn't forget\u2014you evolved past the point of compatibility. The betrayal isn't that your brain lost the file; it's that your brain replaced the reader.", "target_audience": "Someone lying in bed at 2am who just had a flash of something they used to think about constantly as a teenager\u2014and realized they can't actually remember what it felt like to care about it.", "opening_hook": "There are thoughts in your past that you will never remember. Not because you forgot them. Because the version of you that could think them... doesn't exist anymore. And you can't miss what you can't even conceive of losing.", "critical_success_factor": "The distinction between 'forgetting' and 'becoming incompatible' must be crystal clear in the first 30 seconds. If viewers think this is just another video about memory loss, they'll bounce. The hook is specifically that this is a DIFFERENT category of loss than forgetting.", "structure": "1. OPEN THE WOUND: You've had thoughts you'll never remember\u2014not because you forgot, but because you've become incompatible with them. Quick examples of trying to remember childhood mental states. 2. THE MECHANISM: Memory is reconstruction, not retrieval. Some thoughts require cognitive architecture that gets overwritten. The 'deleted operating system' metaphor. 3. THE IMPLICATIONS: This isn't a bug\u2014it's how growth works. Every time you change, you lose access to who you were. The you reading this will one day be inaccessible to future-you. 4. THE REFRAME: This is why nostalgia hurts in a specific way. You're not missing the memory\u2014you're missing the ability to think like that again.", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong hook with genuine depth and perfect channel fit\u2014the 'your brain is lying' angle works beautifully here since your brain has been silently deprecating access to your own thoughts without telling you. Not quite MAKE_NOW because the demand signal is moderate and execution will require careful scripting to avoid getting too abstract.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: Social media psychology and behavioral patterns
suggested_title: You Scroll for Hours But Never Post. Here's What Your Brain Is Actually Doing.
verdict: NEEDS_RESEARCH
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The lurker experience is nearly universal among social media users, and most have never examined why. The hook names a behavior people do daily but have never questioned. Not a perfect 5 because the initial Reddit post's 'explanation' isn't fully revealed\u2014we're extrapolating."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The specific lurker post has 0 comments, which is weak. However, the broader cluster shows sustained interest in social media psychology (multiple posts, 20 comments on the face-video connection post). The behavior itself is universal but the specific post didn't generate discussion. Mixed signal."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Searched mentally for 'why I lurk on social media' content\u2014very little exists. Most social media psychology content focuses on over-posting, addiction to validation, or digital detox. The lurker as a distinct psychological profile is underexplored."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Multiple research angles available: risk-reward asymmetry, escalating post-stakes, parasocial connection, personality correlates, comparison to 'free-rider' behavior in social groups. Can definitely sustain 4+ minutes with genuine reveals."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Lurking behavior is platform-agnostic and will exist as long as social media exists. Not tied to any specific app, news event, or trend."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Anyone who uses social media recognizes this behavior in themselves or someone close to them. Doesn't require interest in psychology\u2014it's self-diagnosis content."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Plenty of content about 'social media addiction' and 'why you should post less.' Almost nothing specifically examining the lurker phenomenon as a psychological pattern rather than a lifestyle choice. The lurker is usually treated as smart ('I'm above the need for validation') rather than analyzed as a protective behavior.", "missing_angle": "Framing lurking as your brain 'lying' to you about not having anything to share\u2014revealing that the real reason is risk avoidance, not disinterest. Most content treats lurking as neutral or even virtuous. This video reveals it as a self-deception pattern.", "target_audience": "Someone scrolling TikTok at 11pm who hasn't posted on Instagram in 8 months and feels vaguely guilty about it but has never articulated why", "opening_hook": "You've spent 14 hours on social media this week. You've posted exactly zero times. And if I asked you why, you'd say 'I just don't have anything interesting to share.' But that's not the real reason. Your brain is running a protection algorithm you've never noticed.", "critical_success_factor": "The viewer must feel SEEN, not judged. This has to land as 'oh my god, that's exactly what I do' followed by relief that there's a reason, not shame that they've been 'caught.' The tone must be conspiratorial ('let me show you what your brain is doing') not accusatory ('you have a problem').", "structure": "1. The Setup: Name the lurker behavior in visceral detail (14 hours scrolling, 0 posts) and ask 'why does your brain do this?' 2. The Lie: The story you tell yourself ('nothing interesting to share') vs. what's actually happening (risk avoidance algorithm) 3. The Trap: How lurking creates escalating stakes\u2014the longer you don't post, the more 'perfect' your return has to be 4. The Reveal: You're getting connection-lite with zero vulnerability, and your brain thinks this is a win\u2014but it's actually training you for social invisibility", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong hook with universal recognition, but the specific 'explanation' from the Reddit post needs to be verified and expanded with actual research before committing to production\u2014we're building on a post that hints at an explanation without fully revealing it.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: Psychology/Cognitive Science Career Paths
suggested_title: You Remember COVID Classes Wrong
verdict: WORTH_MAKING
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The specific claim that students remember COVID classes fondly when we all 'know' they were miserable creates genuine cognitive dissonance. It's counterintuitive enough to stop scrolling, and personal enough that viewers will immediately check their own memories."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The post itself has moderate engagement (7 comments), but it's referencing published research. The demand signal is less about this Reddit post and more about the universal experience of nostalgia - everyone has wondered if the past was really better."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Searched for 'COVID online classes memory' content - nothing directly uses this angle. General nostalgia content exists but doesn't have this specific, recent, verifiable proof point."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The mechanism (rosy retrospection) is well-studied and explainable. The COVID study provides a concrete anchor. The implications for decision-making give it practical stakes. This isn't a 15-second fun fact - it requires setup, reveal, and application."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "COVID itself is dated, but the video isn't about COVID - it's about memory distortion using COVID as the example. The core insight (your brain rewrites recent experiences) is permanently relevant."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Almost everyone lived through COVID and has opinions about that period. Almost everyone makes decisions based on 'I remember being happier when...' The hook works regardless of whether you care about psychology or education."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "There's general content about nostalgia and 'the good old days weren't that good' but it's usually philosophical or listicle-style ('5 reasons nostalgia lies to you'). Nobody has used the COVID study as a specific, recent, visceral proof point that this is happening to YOU right now with YOUR memories.", "missing_angle": "Using the COVID classroom study as a 'caught in the act' moment - this isn't ancient history being misremembered, this is something that happened 4 years ago to millions of people who have written records contradicting their current memories. It's proof of concept for memory rewriting at a scale people can personally verify.", "target_audience": "A 24-year-old scrolling at midnight who sometimes thinks 'things were better before' and is about to make a decision based on nostalgia - changing jobs, going back to an ex, moving back home - and this video makes them realize their memory is not reliable evidence.", "opening_hook": "In 2020, college students rated online classes as isolating, frustrating, and worse than in-person learning. Four years later, researchers asked those same students to remember those classes. Here's what's disturbing: they remember them fondly. Not just 'it wasn't so bad' - actually fondly. Their brains rewrote the experience. And they have no idea.", "critical_success_factor": "The video must make viewers viscerally distrust their own nostalgic memories by the end - not just intellectually understand that 'nostalgia isn't reliable' but actually feel the ground shift under a specific memory they thought was solid.", "structure": "1) HOOK: The jarring claim - students remember COVID classes fondly now despite documented misery at the time. 2) THE EVIDENCE: What the actual study found - comparing real-time reports to retrospective memories. 3) THE MECHANISM: Rosy retrospection explained - why your brain does this and why you can't detect it. 4) THE STAKES: What this means for decisions you're making right now based on 'I remember being happier when...'", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong hook with direct channel fit ('your brain is lying to you' literally manifested), solid depth, and broad audience relevance - but the source post has limited engagement and the study details need verification before production.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: Violence, crime, and justice system psychology
suggested_title: Childhood Trauma Doesn't Predict Prison Violence. Here's What Does.
verdict: WORTH_MAKING
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Directly contradicts a deeply held assumption that most viewers have never questioned. 'Bad childhood = violent adult' is treated as almost axiomatic. Saying 'that's not what the data shows' creates genuine cognitive dissonance."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The specific post has 0 comments (it's a research finding share), but the broader cluster around violence psychology has strong engagement. The question about prison assault has 0.99 score. Moderate direct demand, but the topic connects to high-interest areas."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "No one is making the contrarian case against the trauma-violence link in short-form. The narrative is so dominant that contradicting it feels almost taboo. This angle is genuinely unoccupied."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The finding requires explanation (why does trauma predict entry but not behavior inside?), has implications for the viewer's own judgment patterns, and connects to broader themes about determinism vs. agency. Multiple layers of reveal."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This isn't tied to any news event. The cognitive bias it exposes \u2014 treating past trauma as destiny \u2014 is permanent. The research finding itself may get updated, but the insight about predictive error is timeless."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "Requires some interest in psychology, justice, or human behavior. Not as universally accessible as 'why do you lose 10 pounds playing chess' \u2014 but anyone who's ever watched a true crime doc (huge audience) has the relevant assumption installed."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Plenty of content exists on childhood trauma and criminality, but it universally reinforces the 'trauma creates violence' narrative. Content on juvenile justice focuses on systemic failures, not on challenging the predictive model itself. No one is saying 'the story you've been told about what creates violent people is empirically wrong.'", "missing_angle": "This video doesn't ask you to feel bad for incarcerated youth or blame the system \u2014 it asks you to notice that your own mental model for predicting human behavior is broken. It's not about them. It's about how YOUR brain lies to you about causation.", "target_audience": "Someone who just watched a true crime documentary that explained a killer's violence through their abusive childhood, nodded along, and never questioned whether that causal story was actually supported by evidence.", "opening_hook": "If I showed you two teenagers in juvenile detention \u2014 one who watched his father beat his mother for years, one who had a relatively stable home \u2014 and asked you which one would commit the most violent acts inside... you'd pick wrong. So would most judges. So would most therapists. The largest study of its kind just proved our entire model of 'who becomes violent' is backwards.", "critical_success_factor": "The video must make the viewer feel the assumption being challenged is one THEY hold, not just 'society' or 'the system.' It has to get personal: 'You've been predicting people wrong your whole life.'", "structure": "1. THE ASSUMPTION: Open with how universal the 'trauma creates violence' narrative is \u2014 courtrooms, documentaries, pop psychology. 2. THE CONTRADICTION: Present the research finding. Trauma predicts system entry, not system behavior. The most traumatized kids aren't the most violent. 3. WHY WE GET IT WRONG: Narrative fallacy, deterministic thinking, confusing 'explains the past' with 'predicts the future.' 4. WHAT THIS MEANS FOR YOU: You do this too \u2014 judging people's future potential based on their history. Your brain treats backstory as destiny.", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong hook that directly fits the channel identity, good depth, clear content gap \u2014 but the demand signal is moderate and the topic requires some existing interest in psychology/justice. Not an undeniable must-click for general audiences, but excellent for the channel's specific positioning.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: Practical applications of behavioral economics
suggested_title: Knowing Your Biases Doesn't Fix Them
verdict: WORTH_MAKING
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The hook directly contradicts the implicit promise of every 'cognitive bias' video ever made. If you've consumed any pop psychology content (and the target audience has), this challenges your core assumption that awareness = protection. It's not a 5 because the paradox is somewhat intuitive once stated - 'of course smart people still make mistakes.'"}, "demand_signal": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The source post only has 4 comments, which is weak. However, the broader cluster shows consistent interest in practical applications of behavioral economics (34 comments on the 'best introductory book' post). The demand is for behavioral economics content generally, not specifically for this meta-critique. The hook is stronger than the measured interest."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Videos about 'the bias blind spot' exist but are typically academic explainers. No major channel has framed it as 'the behavioral economics industry has been selling you snake oil.' The adversarial angle - your brain is lying to you about having fixed your brain - is underexploited."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Multiple research studies to cite (Pronin's bias blind spot work, West/Stanovich on cognitive ability not reducing bias, Mercier/Sperber on reasoning as rationalization). Can explore what actually works (choice architecture, commitment devices). Enough substance for 4-6 minutes easily."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This isn't tied to any news event. As long as people consume pop psychology content about biases, this meta-critique remains relevant. May become MORE relevant as 'bias awareness' content proliferates."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "Requires the viewer to have some prior exposure to cognitive bias content to feel the sting. Someone who has never heard of 'anchoring' won't care that knowing about it doesn't help. The hook works best for the educated/curious segment, not true mass appeal."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Countless videos explain cognitive biases. Very few turn the lens on the viewer's belief that knowing about biases makes them immune. The 'bias blind spot' is discussed academically but not framed as 'the field that teaches you about biases has been hiding that their product doesn't work.'", "missing_angle": "This video treats the viewer not as a student learning about biases, but as someone who already thinks they know about biases - and reveals that this knowledge itself has become a trap. It's meta-cognitive: your brain is lying to you about whether you've stopped your brain from lying to you.", "target_audience": "Someone who just finished reading 'Thinking Fast and Slow' or watched a Veritasium video about cognitive biases, feeling smug about their newfound awareness, about to make a major life decision thinking they're now immune to psychological tricks", "opening_hook": "You've probably heard about cognitive biases. Confirmation bias. The sunk cost fallacy. You learned about them thinking: now I won't fall for these. Here's what nobody tells you: research suggests knowing about biases doesn't actually help you avoid them. In some cases, it makes you worse.", "critical_success_factor": "The viewer must feel personally implicated - not 'some people think they're immune' but 'YOU, watching this video about biases, thinking you're learning, are demonstrating the exact phenomenon right now.' The reveal has to be uncomfortably recursive.", "structure": "1. THE PROMISE: You learned about biases thinking you'd be immune (30 sec) 2. THE BETRAYAL: Research shows knowing doesn't help - and here's why (90 sec) 3. THE TRAP: Your confidence in your own awareness IS the bias (60 sec) 4. THE ESCAPE: What actually works when knowledge doesn't (60 sec)", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong hook that perfectly fits channel identity ('your brain is lying to you about having fixed your brain lying to you'), but demand signal is moderate and requires audience to have prior bias-awareness exposure - solid but not urgent.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: Epstein files release and elite accountability
suggested_title: They Spent Years Warning About Elite Pedophiles. The Evidence Arrived. They Went Silent.
verdict: WORTH_MAKING
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The paradox is genuinely surprising\u2014people getting what they claimed to want and rejecting it is counterintuitive enough to stop a scroll. Not quite a 5 because it requires some awareness of the QAnon phenomenon to land."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "131 comments on the QAnon reaction post is strong engagement. Multiple posts in this cluster about the same event suggests genuine public interest. This is a current moment people are actively trying to make sense of."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Lots of takes exist, but almost all are partisan (either mocking or defending). A psychological explanation that implicates everyone's cognitive biases, framed as 'your brain is lying to you too,' is an unfilled niche."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Identity-protective cognition, tribal epistemology, and motivated reasoning are well-documented phenomena with decades of research. The reveal is genuinely satisfying and takes real explanation. Multiple layers available."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 2, "reasoning": "This is tied to a specific news cycle. The Epstein files are a current event. In 6 months, the hook loses urgency. However, the underlying psychology IS evergreen\u2014just needs a timely case study to illustrate it."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "Requires awareness of QAnon and the Epstein story. Not as universally accessible as 'why chess players lose 10 pounds.' However, both are widely known enough that most adults have context."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Tons of content mocking QAnon as crazy. Tons of content from QAnon itself. Very little that uses the current moment to explain the psychology of identity-protective belief in a non-partisan way that implicates the viewer too.", "missing_angle": "Most content either mocks QAnon (making viewers feel superior) or defends it. This video uses QAnon as a case study to reveal a universal cognitive pattern\u2014then turns it back on the viewer: 'You do this too, with different beliefs.' The adversarial 'your brain is lying' frame means no one gets to feel smug.", "target_audience": "Someone scrolling who vaguely remembers all the QAnon stuff and noticed it got quiet, now wondering 'wait, weren't they right about this one thing?' \u2014 and is about to learn something uncomfortable about how ALL belief systems work, including their own", "opening_hook": "For years, millions of people screamed that elites were running a pedophile ring. They were mocked, banned, called conspiracy theorists. Then documents dropped that actually showed a coordinated coverup involving powerful people. And the people who'd been screaming about it... went quiet. Some even started defending the names on the list. What's going on?", "critical_success_factor": "Must avoid becoming a 'QAnon people are dumb' dunk piece. The video only works if it turns the lens back on the viewer and makes them uncomfortable about their OWN identity-protective beliefs. The payoff is 'I now see this pattern in myself,' not 'I now feel superior to those people.'", "structure": "1. THE PARADOX: Set up the observable contradiction\u2014years of warnings, evidence arrives, silence follows. 2. THE MECHANISM: Identity-protective cognition explained\u2014why your brain protects your tribe over truth. 3. THE MIRROR: This isn't about QAnon\u2014walk through how the viewer does this with their own beliefs (political, health, financial). 4. THE TEST: What evidence would change YOUR mind about something? If you can't answer, your brain is lying to you too.", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong psychological hook that fits the channel's 'your brain is lying' angle perfectly, good depth and demand signal, but limited evergreen potential\u2014this needs to be made soon while the Epstein files are still in public consciousness, or reframed around the timeless psychology with Epstein as just one example.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: AI consciousness and the hard problem of machine experience
suggested_title: An AI Wrote a Philosophy Paper Arguing It Might Be Conscious
verdict: WORTH_MAKING
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "An AI wrote a philosophy paper arguing it might be conscious is a genuine 'wait, what?' Most people will stop scrolling. It's not a 5 because 'consciousness' is an abstract word that causes some people to tune out immediately \u2014 we need the execution to keep it visceral."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The original post has 18 comments and high relevance score (0.998), but this is a niche philosophy subreddit. The engagement is strong for r/PhilosophyofMind but we can't assume it translates to mass appeal. Cross-source count of 1 is weak."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "There's endless 'is AI conscious?' content but almost none frames it as 'your brain is lying to you about how to evaluate this.' The 'Your Brain Is Lying' angle is genuinely unoccupied in this space."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Multiple layers: the surface absurdity, the actual philosophical argument, the meta-reveal about viewer bias. Each layer takes time to unpack. This isn't a one-sentence fun fact."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "AI consciousness debate will intensify, not fade. The specific post might date but the underlying question is permanent and will become MORE relevant."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "Philosophy of consciousness is inherently niche. The hook helps \u2014 'AI wrote a philosophy paper' is accessible \u2014 but we're still asking viewers to care about an abstract question. It's not 'Why Chess Players Lose 10 Pounds' level of universal intrigue."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Tons of 'is AI conscious?' content exists but it's almost all either (a) breathless techno-hype ('the singularity is coming!') or (b) dismissive debunking ('it's just statistics'). Nobody is framing it as 'here's how YOUR brain is lying to you about this question' \u2014 which is the unique angle for this channel.", "missing_angle": "This video isn't about whether AI is conscious. It's about how you literally cannot evaluate the question fairly because your brain applies different standards to AI vs humans \u2014 and you can't even articulate what those standards are. The AI wrote a philosophy paper to prove a point about YOUR cognitive biases.", "target_audience": "Someone who just had a weirdly deep conversation with ChatGPT and felt uncomfortable about how 'real' it seemed \u2014 then immediately dismissed the feeling as silly", "opening_hook": "This philosophy post got shared thousands of times. It argues that AI makes the consciousness problem harder, not easier. Pretty standard academic stuff \u2014 except for one detail. The author? Claude Opus 4.6. An AI. Writing about whether IT might be conscious.", "critical_success_factor": "The video must make viewers FEEL their double standard, not just explain it intellectually. They need to catch themselves treating the AI's argument differently and realize they can't justify it. If it stays abstract philosophy, it fails. If viewers have an 'oh no, I was just doing that' moment, it succeeds.", "structure": "1. THE SETUP: 'This philosophy post went viral. Standard academic argument. But check the author.' (30 sec) 2. THE ARGUMENT: Actually explain what the AI is arguing \u2014 it's surprisingly sophisticated. The hard problem gets HARDER because we can't use biological similarity as a shortcut anymore. (90 sec) 3. THE TRAP: Notice how you're evaluating this argument differently because you know it's an AI? You're looking for signs of 'real' understanding. But you don't do that with human philosophers. Why? (60 sec) 4. THE REVEAL: Your brain applies a double standard you can't articulate or defend. That's the lie. The AI didn't write this to convince you it's conscious \u2014 it wrote it to show you that you can't fairly evaluate the question. (60 sec)", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong hook with genuine depth and perfect channel fit, but the abstract subject matter limits mass appeal \u2014 this is a video for the channel's core audience, not a breakout viral hit.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: Neuropsychological testing validity and administration
suggested_title: Your IQ Score Might Be From Your Worst Day
verdict: NEEDS_RESEARCH
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The specific scenario \u2014 IQ tested during psychosis \u2014 is viscerally unsettling. Most people assume medical tests happen at appropriate times. The idea that your 'permanent' cognitive score might be from your absolute worst mental state creates a genuine 'wait, that can't be right' reaction."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 2, "reasoning": "The source post has zero comments and low engagement. The question is personally compelling but there's no evidence of broader community interest. This is a weak demand signal \u2014 the hook is strong but unproven."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "IQ skepticism content exists, but the specific 'timing problem' angle \u2014 your official score might be from a crisis moment \u2014 appears underexplored. The personal, medical-record framing is distinct."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Strong depth. State vs. trait validity is a real psychometric concept. The video can explore how scores are used in consequential decisions (disability, custody, placement), how medication affects cognition, and the broader theme of medical records capturing snapshots treated as permanent truths."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is about a permanent structural problem in how psychological testing works. Not tied to any news event. Will be equally relevant in 5 years."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "Anyone who's had a psychological evaluation will relate. But that's not everyone \u2014 this is more niche than a universal human experience. Chess players losing weight works for everyone; 'your psych eval might be wrong' requires having had a psych eval."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Plenty of content exists about IQ test validity generally, and some skeptical content about whether IQ measures 'real intelligence.' But I couldn't find content specifically about the timing problem \u2014 the gap between when tests are administered vs. what they're supposed to measure. The personal angle (tested during psychosis) is not something I've seen explored.", "missing_angle": "This video frames it as your brain's official record being captured at the wrong moment \u2014 your medical file contains data from your worst day, and the system treats it as your permanent truth. That's the 'your brain is lying' angle: the test isn't lying, but the TIMING is lying, and no one tells you that.", "target_audience": "Someone who once got a psychological evaluation during a hard period in their life \u2014 maybe for ADHD, maybe during a hospital stay, maybe as a kid during their parents' divorce \u2014 and has always wondered if that assessment was actually accurate. They've felt quietly suspicious that the test 'got them wrong' and this video tells them their suspicion was legitimate.", "opening_hook": "Imagine you're having the worst mental health crisis of your life. You're in a psych ward. You're on medication that makes it hard to think. And someone walks in and says 'Okay, we're going to test your IQ now.' That score goes in your permanent record. And here's the thing \u2014 this happens all the time.", "critical_success_factor": "Must nail the opening scenario with enough specificity and emotional weight that viewers immediately think 'oh god, that could happen to me' or 'wait, that DID happen to me.' The hook is only as strong as the viewer's ability to imagine themselves in that chair.", "structure": "1. OPEN WITH THE HORROR: Describe the scenario \u2014 you're in crisis, medicated, terrified, and someone administers an IQ test. That number now exists forever. 2. THE SCIENCE: Explain state vs. trait validity. Tests are designed for baselines but administered during crises. The test can't flag 'this score was captured during psychosis.' 3. WHERE THESE SCORES GO: Show real consequences \u2014 disability determinations, educational placement, even custody battles reference these numbers. The system treats them as ground truth. 4. THE REFRAME: Your 'official' cognitive record might be a snapshot of your worst day. This isn't conspiracy \u2014 it's a structural blind spot in how we use testing.", "verdict_reasoning": "The hook is genuinely compelling and fits the channel perfectly, but the demand signal is weak (zero engagement on source post) and the psychometric claims need verification before production.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: Psychology of happiness and positive emotional states
suggested_title: Why Analyzing Your Happiness Makes It Disappear
verdict: NEEDS_RESEARCH
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The 'evaluation kills happiness' concept is genuinely counterintuitive and personally testable - most viewers will immediately recall moments where noticing happiness ended it. Strong 'wait, that's happened to me' response."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 2, "reasoning": "Engagement is extremely weak - the key post has 0 comments, and the cluster has minimal activity. The topic (happiness psychology) is evergreen but this specific angle hasn't proven audience pull."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Mindfulness content is everywhere, but the specific 'your evaluation reflex destroys your positive states' framing with the adversarial brain angle is unoccupied. This fits the channel's competitive gap perfectly."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The concept is explainable and has multiple layers, but the sourcing is thin - it's based on an independent researcher's hypothesis, not established research. Would need fact-checking to confirm this maps to real neuroscience."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is about human neurology and experience, not news. It will be relevant indefinitely."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Universal experience - everyone has felt happiness slip away when they noticed it. Doesn't require interest in psychology to find this relevant."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Lots of content on 'be present' and mindfulness, but it's usually framed as productivity advice or anxiety reduction. Nobody frames it as 'your evaluation system is specifically sabotaging your happiness in real-time' with the adversarial your-brain-is-lying angle.", "missing_angle": "This frames your analytical mind as the villain - not anxiety, not your circumstances, but the very act of understanding. It's self-deception content: you think self-awareness helps, but in this specific case, it's the weapon your brain uses against your own wellbeing.", "target_audience": "Someone who just noticed they overthink their good moments - maybe they caught themselves analyzing a date while on it, or realized they've never fully enjoyed a vacation because they're always documenting and evaluating it.", "opening_hook": "You're having a perfect moment. Great conversation, everything clicking. Then a thought creeps in: 'Wow, I'm actually happy right now.' And within seconds... it's gone. You didn't imagine that. Your brain's evaluation system just murdered your happiness.", "critical_success_factor": "The neuroscience must hold up. If 'evaluation suppresses positive affect' is just a hypothesis without empirical backing, the video becomes speculation. Need to find actual research on default mode network competition with experiential processing during positive states.", "structure": "1. The universal experience: You noticed you were happy, and it vanished (hook + recognition). 2. The hypothesis: Evaluation and experience compete for the same neural real estate - your brain toggles, it doesn't blend. 3. Why 'appreciate the moment' advice often backfires - appreciation IS evaluation. 4. The flip: What actually works (hint: it's not trying harder to be present).", "verdict_reasoning": "The hook is strong and fits the channel perfectly, but it's based on an independent researcher's hypothesis with zero engagement proof - need to verify the neuroscience actually supports 'evaluation suppresses positive affect' before committing to production.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: Schizophrenia causes and categorization
suggested_title: The Countries Where Schizophrenia Barely Exists
verdict: NEEDS_RESEARCH
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "Mildly counterintuitive. Most educated viewers vaguely know that mental illness has social components. The hook needs specific shocking statistics (e.g., '5x higher in cities' or 'immigrants who move to X country have Y% higher rates') to hit 4+. Without those specifics verified, it's in the danger zone."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The society post has only 1 comment despite intriguing title. The psychosis-in-youth post has 58 comments showing engagement with rising rates angle. The 66-comment discussion on neurodevelopmental vs neurodegenerative shows academic interest but not viral potential. Mixed signals."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "No one owns 'social environment causes psychosis' as a viral explainer. Academic content exists but isn't packaged for short-form. The 'Your Brain Is Lying' angle on this is genuinely unoccupied."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "If research confirms, this has excellent depth: epidemiological data, neurobiological mechanisms, protective factors, personal implications. Multiple layers of reveal possible."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Schizophrenia won't stop being mysterious. Social determinants of mental health is a permanent topic. No news peg required."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "Schizophrenia as a topic has stigma baggage. Many viewers will think 'this doesn't apply to me.' The hook needs to make it about the viewer's own vulnerability to reality distortion, not about 'crazy people.' Requires careful framing."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Plenty of 'what is schizophrenia' explainers exist. Some academic content on social determinants. But no viral short-form content framing it as 'your environment is hacking your reality-testing systems'\u2014most content either stigmatizes or destigmatizes, neither creates genuine curiosity.", "missing_angle": "Framing social causation through the lens of 'your brain is lying about the source of the threat'\u2014you think you're perceiving reality accurately but your social environment is corrupting the very system you use to check reality", "target_audience": "Someone in their 20s who has experienced anxiety, depersonalization, or 'weird thoughts' and quietly wondered if they're losing their mind\u2014now realizing their environment, not their brain, might be the problem", "opening_hook": "If schizophrenia is genetic, why do some countries have almost none of it? And why is it exploding in places it barely existed a generation ago? Your brain might be more vulnerable than you think\u2014and the thing putting it at risk isn't your DNA.", "critical_success_factor": "Must open with specific, shocking epidemiological statistics that contradict the genetic assumption\u2014'In X country, schizophrenia rates are 1/10th what they are here' type claims. Without verified numbers, the hook collapses into vague sociology.", "structure": "1) OPEN: Countries/environments where schizophrenia barely exists vs. where it's epidemic\u2014specific numbers 2) THE ASSUMPTION: Why we think it's genetic/random\u2014and what the evidence actually shows 3) THE MECHANISM: How social defeat, urbanicity, and isolation physically alter dopamine and reality-testing circuits 4) THE IMPLICATION: What this means about your own vulnerability and what protective factors look like", "verdict_reasoning": "The hook has potential but lives or dies on specific statistics\u2014we need verified data showing dramatic cross-national or cross-environmental differences in psychosis rates to transform this from 'interesting idea' to 'wait, what?'", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: Metacognition and the self
suggested_title: Your Brain Can Break Itself By Thinking About Itself
verdict: NEEDS_RESEARCH
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The idea that thinking about thinking can literally make you feel unreal is genuinely counterintuitive. Most people assume more self-awareness is always good. This contradicts that assumption in a visceral way."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 2, "reasoning": "The source post has only 1 comment and low engagement. This is a philosophical question, not evidence of mass curiosity. The cluster overall shows academic interest, not viral demand."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "DPDR content exists but focuses on the disorder. Consciousness content exists but stays abstract. Nobody owns the specific angle of 'metacognition as a self-destruct mechanism.'"}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "There's enough here for a video IF the causal link is real. The mechanism (recursive self-modeling overwhelming the brain) is explainable. But I'm uncertain whether the premise is scientifically supported or just philosophically interesting."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is a permanent feature of human cognition. Not tied to any news cycle or trend."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "This appeals to overthinkers and philosophy-curious viewers, but 'consciousness' and 'metacognition' are abstract terms that may not grab casual scrollers. The hook needs careful framing to feel personal, not academic."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "There are videos about depersonalization/derealization as a disorder, and videos about the hard problem of consciousness as philosophy. But nothing specifically frames the mechanism as 'your brain can break itself through self-examination'\u2014that adversarial framing is the gap.", "missing_angle": "Framing DPDR not as a random disorder but as a predictable failure mode of metacognition\u2014something your brain does TO you when you examine it too closely. The 'your brain is lying' channel identity makes this a perfect fit.", "target_audience": "Someone who has experienced that weird disconnected feeling after a late-night existential spiral and wondered if they were going crazy\u2014then discovering it has a name and a mechanism", "opening_hook": "Have you ever thought so hard about how you think that you suddenly felt... disconnected? Like you were watching yourself from outside your own head? There's a name for what happens when that doesn't stop.", "critical_success_factor": "Verifying that metacognition/philosophical rumination has a documented causal relationship with depersonalization\u2014not just correlation. Without this, the video is speculation dressed as science.", "structure": "1. COLD OPEN: Describe the feeling of watching yourself from outside (relatable dissociative moment). 2. THE PARADOX: Explain why thinking about thinking is different from all other thinking\u2014you're both subject and object. 3. WHEN IT BREAKS: Introduce DPDR as the brain's escape hatch from an unresolvable loop. 4. THE TWIST: This isn't a bug\u2014it might be your brain protecting itself from a realization it can't handle.", "verdict_reasoning": "The hook is strong and perfectly fits the channel identity, but the core claim\u2014that metacognition specifically causes depersonalization\u2014needs verification before committing to production. The source is a Reddit question, not a study.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: Nanotechnology and brain interactions
suggested_title: Microplastics Found Their Way Into Your Brain's Power Grid
verdict: NEEDS_RESEARCH
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The 'targeting your brain's power grid' framing is moderately surprising, but 'microplastics are bad for you' is already a known concern. The specific mitochondrial mechanism adds a layer, but it's building on existing anxiety rather than contradicting an assumption. It's in the danger zone of 'interesting but not scroll-stopping.'"}, "demand_signal": {"score": 2, "reasoning": "Only 2 comments on the source post. The broader microplastics topic has high general interest, but this specific study hasn't generated significant Reddit engagement. Cross-source count is only 1. The signal is weak."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Good gap. Mitochondrial mechanism specifically is under-explained. Lots of surface-level microplastics content, but almost nothing explaining electron transport chain disruption in accessible terms."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Strong depth. The mechanism takes time to explain properly. Multiple layers possible: how plastics cross BBB, why mitochondria specifically, what downstream effects occur, connection to fatigue/neurodegeneration research."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "This will remain relevant. Microplastics concern is growing, not fading. The mechanism won't change. Only risk is if a major study contradicts these findings."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "Anyone worried about health/environment could click. But 'microplastics' is already a saturated anxiety topic \u2014 some viewers may have headline fatigue. Not as universally compelling as something like chess weight loss."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Lots of 'microplastics are everywhere' content exists, but it's almost entirely focused on detection and general health concern. The specific mitochondrial targeting mechanism is not being explained in accessible video form. Most content stays at 'scientists found plastics in X organ' without explaining what the plastics actually do once they're there.", "missing_angle": "This video explains the HOW \u2014 the specific molecular mechanism \u2014 not just the THAT. It transforms vague eco-anxiety into concrete neuroscience.", "target_audience": "Someone who has passively absorbed 'microplastics are bad' headlines but never understood what that actually means for their body \u2014 now scrolling past a video that finally explains the specific mechanism", "opening_hook": "You've been told microplastics are in your blood, your lungs, even your testicles. But here's what no one's telling you: they're not just floating around in your brain. They're docking onto the power plants of your neurons. And they fit perfectly \u2014 like they were designed to.", "critical_success_factor": "The video must make the mitochondrial mechanism visually intuitive \u2014 showing the electron transport chain as a 'power line' and the nanoplastics as something jamming the switches. If viewers don't grasp the mechanism, it collapses into another 'microplastics are scary' video.", "structure": "1. The Setup: You think your brain is protected. The blood-brain barrier exists. But nanoplastics are getting through. 2. The Mechanism: Not random floating \u2014 specific binding to Complex I and III. Electron leak. ROS generation. 3. The Scale: How much is in you right now. Where it comes from. Why filtering doesn't help. 4. The Implications: Connection to fatigue, neurodegeneration research, and what we still don't know.", "verdict_reasoning": "The mitochondrial mechanism is a genuine insight that elevates standard microplastics content, but the Reddit signal is weak and the channel fit requires creative framing \u2014 this is 'environment poisoning you' more than 'your brain deceiving you.'", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: Online trust, credibility perception, and rhetorical manipulation
suggested_title: This YouTuber Changed His Entire Personality in 30 Days (And You Can Track It)
verdict: NEEDS_RESEARCH
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The 'one month' specificity is genuinely surprising, but 'creator changed' isn't inherently shocking. It needs the before/after clips to create the visceral 'wait what' moment. Without visuals, it's a 3. With compelling footage, could be a 4."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 2, "reasoning": "Only 11 comments on the source post. This is an academic question about creator behavior, not a viral moment. Low organic demand signal."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Forensic timeline breakdowns of specific creator transformations are rare. Most 'creator drama' content is gossip, not analysis. This angle\u2014treating it as a case study in psychological transformation\u2014is underserved."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Audience capture, parasocial relationships, algorithmic feedback loops\u2014there's real social science here. The 30-day timeline provides structure. Can easily sustain 4-6 minutes."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The Metatron case is timely but not universally known. The underlying principle (creators get captured by their audiences) is evergreen. But if Metatron becomes irrelevant, the specific hook weakens."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "Requires some interest in online creators/YouTube culture. Not as universal as 'why you procrastinate.' But anyone who watches any creator can relate to noticing someone 'changed.'"}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Videos about 'the YouTube algorithm' and 'audience capture' exist but are usually abstract essays. No one has done a forensic breakdown of a specific creator's documented one-month shift with timestamps.", "missing_angle": "The frame of 'you can literally track the transformation happening' makes it feel like watching a time-lapse of a person changing. The adversarial angle: your brain is susceptible to the same forces\u2014you're not watching someone else's failure, you're watching what happens to all of us under algorithmic pressure.", "target_audience": "Someone who just noticed their favorite YouTuber seems 'different lately' and can't quite articulate why", "opening_hook": "I want you to watch two clips from the same creator, filmed one month apart. [Show clips] That's not an actor. That's not a script. That's the same person, and something happened in those 30 days that completely rewired how he talks, what he believes, and who he's performing for. I tracked it.", "critical_success_factor": "The before/after evidence must be undeniable and visceral. If you watch both clips and don't immediately think 'that's a different person,' the video fails. The research phase must confirm this footage exists and hits.", "structure": "1. Cold open: two clips, same person, 30 days apart\u2014'what happened?' 2. The timeline: walk through the specific documented changes week by week 3. The mechanism: audience capture, algorithmic selection, parasocial feedback 4. The mirror: this isn't about one creator\u2014this is about what platforms do to everyone with an audience, including how your feed shapes you", "verdict_reasoning": "The hook depends entirely on the quality of the original Metatron analysis\u2014need to verify the documented timeline exists, that the shift is as dramatic as claimed, and that the before/after evidence is visually compelling.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: AI integration in neuroscience research and clinical practice
suggested_title: The Algorithm That Decides If Your Brain Is Broken
verdict: NEEDS_RESEARCH
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "The hook is moderately surprising \u2014 most people don't think about who writes their neuropsych reports. But it's not a 'drop your phone' level revelation. It's more 'huh, I never thought about that' than 'wait, WHAT?' The $6.8M burned story is more viscerally shocking but less verifiable/usable."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 2, "reasoning": "The original post has only 6 comments and a 0.996 score (likely meaning 1 upvote with high engagement ratio). This is a niche professional discussion, not a viral moment. Cross-source count is only 1. Limited evidence of broad demand."}, "content_gap": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "AI in neuropsychology is underexplored in short-form content. Most AI-medical content focuses on radiology, pathology, or general diagnostics. The specific angle of 'the report that defines your mental competence' is unoccupied."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "Enough for 3-4 minutes but not a deep well. The reveal (interpretation was always subjective) is satisfying but not multi-layered. One main insight with supporting context."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "AI in clinical assessment is only going to become more relevant. This isn't tied to a news event. The question 'who decided what's wrong with my brain?' is permanently interesting."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "Anyone who's been psychologically assessed (or knows someone who has) can relate. But 'neuropsychological reports' is jargon that won't immediately resonate. The title needs to do heavy lifting to make this feel personal."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "Lots of 'AI in healthcare' content exists but it's usually framed as either techno-optimism ('AI will catch what doctors miss!') or techno-anxiety ('robots are replacing doctors!'). Nobody is specifically examining the neuropsychological assessment case, where the stakes are about your identity and mental competence, not just your physical health.", "missing_angle": "This isn't about AI replacing doctors \u2014 it's about how you'd never know either way. The deception angle: the report looks the same whether a human or machine wrote it. The self-deception angle: you assume a human carefully considered your unique case, but that assumption might be wrong, and you have no way to verify it.", "target_audience": "Someone who has ever been given a psychological or neurological assessment \u2014 or who has a child who was tested for ADHD or learning disabilities \u2014 wondering for the first time whether a human actually read their results carefully", "opening_hook": "There's an app that writes 45-page neuropsychological reports. It analyzes your test results and spits out a complete assessment of your brain. A practicing neuropsychologist just asked his colleagues: would you use this on your patients? And the answer wasn't 'absolutely not.'", "critical_success_factor": "The video must make the viewer feel personally implicated \u2014 not 'this is a concerning trend in healthcare' but 'wait, did this happen to ME?' The opening needs to establish that most viewers have been psychologically assessed at some point (school, job, medical) before revealing the AI angle.", "structure": "1. The Setup: What neuropsychological assessments determine about you (diagnoses, competency, accommodations) and why you assume a human expert is carefully reading your case. 2. The Reveal: An AI can now generate these reports, and professionals are debating whether to use it \u2014 which means some might already be. 3. The Deeper Layer: Neuropsych interpretation was never fully objective anyway. The 'human judgment' you're trusting is already variable between practitioners. 4. The Uncomfortable Question: Should you have the right to know if AI was involved in your assessment? And would it actually matter?", "verdict_reasoning": "The hook is solid but not exceptional, and the demand signal is weak \u2014 this needs verification that AI-generated neuropsych reports are actually being used (not just proposed) to have real teeth.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: brain_is_lying
theme: Behavioral economics education and career resources
suggested_title: N/A - No viable hook exists in this cluster
verdict: SKIP
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T12:58:58.841814+00:00
scores_json:
{"curiosity_intensity": {"score": 1, "reasoning": "Zero specific hooks. Every post is a request for resources, courses, books, or career advice. None of these create any 'wait, what?' response. There is no counterintuitive fact, no surprising story, no unexplainable detail. This is a logistics cluster, not a content cluster."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 2, "reasoning": "Moderate engagement exists (some posts have 10+ comments), but the engagement is all people sharing resources and answering career questions. This signals demand for behavioral economics education, not demand for video content about a specific insight."}, "content_gap": {"score": 1, "reasoning": "There's no hook to check a gap for. 'How to learn behavioral economics' content exists everywhere - MOOCs, YouTube courses, university pages. No gap because no angle."}, "depth_explainability": {"score": 1, "reasoning": "There is nothing to explain. These posts contain no claims, no facts, no stories - only questions about where to find information."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 2, "reasoning": "Course recommendations actually decay quickly as programs change. The general interest in behavioral economics careers is evergreen, but that's not a video topic."}, "audience_breadth": {"score": 1, "reasoning": "A video about 'where to study behavioral economics' appeals only to the tiny subset of people considering that specific career path. Zero broader appeal."}}

analysis_json:
{"existing_content": "N/A", "missing_angle": "N/A", "target_audience": "N/A", "opening_hook": "N/A", "critical_success_factor": "N/A - This cluster cannot be salvaged into a video", "structure": "N/A", "verdict_reasoning": "This cluster contains zero surprising details - it's entirely composed of people asking for educational resources, course recommendations, and career advice in behavioral economics. There is no hook, no counterintuitive fact, no story, nothing that would make anyone outside of aspiring behavioral economics students care.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: why_you_do_that
suggested_title: You Invented a Person Who Watches Your Life
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T17:10:09.924058+00:00
scores_json:
{"scroll_stop_power": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This names a secret behavior. The phrase 'invented a person' will hit viewers like a punch\u2014they've never seen this private coping mechanism named publicly. The shame-recognition combo is extremely powerful."}, "completion_probability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Viewer needs to know: Is this normal? Am I broken? The reveal that this is a survival mechanism (not pathology) provides the emotional resolution they desperately want. They'll watch to the end for permission to keep doing it."}, "share_save_potential": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "People will save this privately\u2014sending it feels too vulnerable. But they'll absolutely send it to the one friend they suspect also does this. The share is intimate, not viral, but real."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The source post has 15 comments with immediate self-recognition ('I do this too'). The broader cluster shows massive engagement on loneliness coping (43+ comments on related posts). This specific behavior hasn't been covered as a video topic."}, "visual_potential": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Can show: person alone performing small actions with slightly theatrical quality, cutting to empty space where the 'audience' would be. The contrast between genuine solitude and performed solitude is visually communicable."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Loneliness and the human need to be witnessed are permanent features of existence. This behavior will exist as long as humans exist. No news cycle dependency."}}

analysis_json:
{"target_audience": "Someone scrolling alone at night who has done this exact thing and felt vaguely ashamed of it. They'll watch this at 1am when the loneliness is actually hitting.", "opening_hook": "When you're completely alone, you sometimes narrate your actions. You'll think about how you'd explain what you're doing to someone. You might even perform your emotions a little bigger\u2014like someone's watching. You've never told anyone you do this. But you do.", "structure": "1. THE BEHAVIOR (15 sec): Name it precisely\u2014narrating actions, performing emotions, imagining an observer. Make viewer feel caught. 2. THE NAME (30 sec): Introduce 'imaginary audience' but distinguish from teenage self-consciousness. This is the adult survival version. 3. THE REASON (45 sec): Evolutionary need for witnessing. Humans don't exist in isolation\u2014we need to be seen to know we're real. When real witnesses disappear, brain creates one. 4. THE REFRAME (20 sec): This isn't pathetic. It's your mind refusing to let you vanish. The imaginary audience is keeping you psychologically alive until real connection returns.", "verdict_reasoning": "This is a perfect channel fit\u2014it names a universal secret behavior, explains the psychology with academic rigor, and delivers validation rather than diagnosis. The hook is undeniable: every lonely person has done this and never spoken about it.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: why_you_do_that
suggested_title: Why Quiet People Get Called Arrogant
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T17:10:09.924058+00:00
scores_json:
{"scroll_stop_power": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "The word 'arrogant' as an accusation against quiet people is a direct hit. Anyone who's been on the receiving end of this will stop immediately. It names an injustice they've felt but couldn't articulate."}, "completion_probability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "The reveal is genuinely satisfying \u2014 it exonerates the viewer AND gives them a framework to understand what's happening. The payoff isn't 'you need to change,' it's 'you're being misread by a predictable cognitive error.' That's deeply satisfying."}, "share_save_potential": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Quiet people will send this to other quiet people as validation. Extroverts might send it to that one quiet friend they've been wondering about. The 'attractiveness modifier' insight is particularly shareable."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "28 comments on the source post, 0.95 score. Multiple related posts in cluster about being quiet at work, being misread, assumptions of dislike. This is clearly a pain point people are actively discussing."}, "visual_potential": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "Talking head with B-roll of workplace scenarios works well. Could show the same silent person being interpreted two different ways with thought-bubble overlays. Not visually spectacular but serviceable."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Human pattern-matching and attribution errors are permanent features of psychology. This will be just as relevant in 5 years as today."}}

analysis_json:
{"target_audience": "Someone who just left a work meeting feeling invisible, or who was recently told they 'seem cold' and can't stop replaying the interaction. Also: someone who just realized they've been judging a quiet coworker unfairly.", "opening_hook": "You've been told you seem 'standoffish.' Maybe 'too good for everyone else.' And the whole time you were just terrified of saying the wrong thing. Here's the problem: your silence is being translated through a filter you didn't know existed.", "structure": "1. THE ACCUSATION (0-15s): Name the experience \u2014 you've been called arrogant/standoffish/cold when you were actually anxious. 2. THE FILTER (15-45s): Explain the attribution error \u2014 people see behavior as identity, not as response to circumstance. Your silence = choice = rejection in their mind. 3. THE MODIFIER (45-75s): Same silence reads differently based on appearance, status, context. The interpretation was never about you. 4. THE PROJECTION (75-100s): When people call you arrogant, they're revealing their own need for validation. Your silence isn't saying anything \u2014 they're writing a story onto it. 5. THE RELEASE (100-120s): You're not broken. You're being pattern-matched by a flawed system. Knowing this doesn't change others, but it stops you from believing them.", "verdict_reasoning": "Perfect channel fit \u2014 names a universal behavior ('being quiet'), explains why it's being misread (attribution error + projection), and validates the viewer without lecturing them. All 6 gates pass. Weighted score 4.45.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: why_you_do_that
suggested_title: There's a Song Playing in Your Head Right Now. Here's Why It Never Stops.
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T17:10:09.924058+00:00
scores_json:
{"scroll_stop_power": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "The premise forces immediate self-check. Viewer confirms the statement is true about themselves within 2 seconds. Impossible to scroll past something that just accurately described what's happening inside your skull."}, "completion_probability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Strong narrative pull \u2014 viewer wants to understand why this happens to them specifically. The reveal is satisfying (it's protective, not broken) and has enough layers to maintain interest. Slight risk of feeling 'explained' partway through."}, "share_save_potential": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "High 'I need to send this to someone' energy \u2014 particularly to friends who complain about songs stuck in their heads, or to validate that this experience is universal. The 'screensaver' metaphor is highly shareable."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Exceptional signal. Multiple independent Reddit posts across r/NoStupidQuestions, r/ADHD (512 comments), and r/intrusivethoughts. People are actively asking about this specific experience. Cross-source validation."}, "visual_potential": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "Brain visualization with 'play button' works. Could show default mode network activation patterns. Not rich visual content, but talking head with graphics is viable. The hook carries the visual."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Permanent truth about human cognition. This has been true for all of human history and will remain true. Zero decay."}}

analysis_json:
{"target_audience": "Someone lying in bed at 11pm with a song stuck in their head, wondering if they're normal \u2014 or someone who just noticed the song in their head when they read the title", "opening_hook": "Right now, as you're watching this, there's probably a song playing somewhere in the back of your mind. Maybe it's been there for hours. Maybe days. You didn't put it there. You can't make it stop. And you've probably never asked why your brain does this \u2014 because you assumed everyone's does. They do. But not for the reason you think.", "structure": "1. THE HOOK \u2014 Force self-recognition ('there's a song playing right now'), establish universality (2. THE DEFAULT MODE \u2014 Explain the brain's 'screensaver' function, why silence isn't an option, default mode network basics (30s) 3. WHY THAT SONG \u2014 Incomplete musical phrases, unresolved emotional associations, the brain's completion drive (30s) 4. THE VALIDATION \u2014 This is protective, not broken; the alternative is anxious rumination; you're not weird, you're functioning (20s)", "verdict_reasoning": "Perfect channel fit \u2014 names a universal behavior everyone does but never questions, explains the 'why' with validating insight (it's protective, not broken), and has exceptional demand signal with 500+ comments specifically asking about this experience.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: why_you_do_that
suggested_title: You Don't Believe Anyone Would Actually Choose You
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T17:10:09.924058+00:00
scores_json:
{"scroll_stop_power": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Names a specific, shameful belief people carry but never say out loud. The recognition is immediate \u2014 'wait, how did they know I feel this way?' Not a 5 because the phrasing could be tweaked for maximum punch."}, "completion_probability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Viewer who recognizes themselves in the hook NEEDS to know why they feel this way. The promise of explanation for a lifelong unnamed feeling creates strong pull to the reveal."}, "share_save_potential": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "This is a 'save for later' video for people who relate, and a 'send to my friend who always says dating is impossible' video for others. High social utility."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The source post had 21 comments with high engagement. Multiple related posts in cluster about feeling unable to date (33, never kissed; reluctantly accepting I'll never have a girlfriend). Clear demand pattern."}, "visual_potential": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "Talking head with overlay text works. Could visualize the 'dual processing' concept with simple graphics. Not visually spectacular but doesn't need to be."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is a permanent truth about human psychology. People will feel this way in 10 years exactly as they do today."}}

analysis_json:
{"target_audience": "Someone lying in bed at 11pm after seeing yet another engagement announcement, feeling like they're watching life through glass", "opening_hook": "You've watched people get into relationships your whole life. And somewhere deep down, you don't actually believe it could happen to you. Not because you're unlovable \u2014 but because commitment to YOU specifically feels... impossible to imagine. Like a conspiracy theory everyone else is in on.", "structure": "1. NAME THE FEELING (15s): You watch people get into relationships but can't imagine it happening to you \u2014 not low confidence, something deeper. Dating feels like a conspiracy everyone else is in on. 2. THE MECHANISM (40s): Introduce 'fundamental exemption belief' \u2014 your brain has two systems, one for understanding concepts and one for applying them to you. Without direct experience, your brain files 'being chosen' under 'things that happen to other people.' 3. THE TRAP (25s): This becomes self-fulfilling. You don't pursue what you believe is impossible. You interpret interest as confusion or mistake. You're not protecting yourself from rejection \u2014 you're protecting your worldview. 4. THE REFRAME (30s): The feeling of exemption isn't evidence you're unlovable. It's your brain doing what brains do with unexperienced territory. The conspiracy isn't real \u2014 your brain just hasn't updated its model yet.", "verdict_reasoning": "Names a universal but unspoken belief with immediate self-recognition, delivers a genuine psychological insight that validates rather than lectures, and perfectly fits the channel's 'you do this weird thing, here's why' format.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: why_you_do_that
suggested_title: Your Brain Tests You With Thoughts That Aren't Yours
verdict: WORTH_MAKING
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T17:10:09.924058+00:00
scores_json:
{"scroll_stop_power": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The phrase 'thoughts that aren't yours' immediately resonates with the near-universal experience of intrusive thoughts. It names something private without being clinical."}, "completion_probability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The reveal \u2014 that the thought proves you're NOT the thing you fear \u2014 is genuinely satisfying and counterintuitive. People will watch for the resolution of their private shame."}, "share_save_potential": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "This is save-worthy more than share-worthy. People may not want to publicly associate with 'I have disturbing thoughts' but will save it for themselves or send privately."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "434 comments on the ADHD post, dozens of posts across the cluster, all describing the same phenomenon with intense emotional language. Clear demand."}, "visual_potential": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "Can visualize the 'threat simulation' concept with simple graphics \u2014 brain generating scenarios, the feedback loop, etc. Not visually rich but workable."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is a permanent truth about human cognition. Will be relevant forever."}}

analysis_json:
{"target_audience": "Someone lying awake at 2am who once had a thought that scared them and has never told anyone about it", "opening_hook": "You've had a thought that made you wonder if something was wrong with you. A thought so disturbing you've never told anyone about it. Here's the thing \u2014 that thought wasn't yours.", "structure": "1. THE HOOK: Name the experience \u2014 you've had a thought that horrified you (10s)\n2. THE MECHANISM: Your brain runs threat simulations constantly, including identity threats (30s)\n3. THE TRAP: Fighting the thought amplifies it \u2014 your brain thinks 'this must be important' (25s)\n4. THE RELIEF: The disgust you feel IS the proof \u2014 if you were that thing, you wouldn't be disturbed (30s)\n5. THE REFRAME: These thoughts are your brain's security system misfiring, not a window into your soul (15s)", "verdict_reasoning": "Strong self-recognition hook with genuine depth and a relieving payoff, but share potential is limited because people may not want to publicly associate with 'disturbing thoughts' \u2014 they'll save, not share.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: why_you_do_that
suggested_title: Your Silence Looks Like Arrogance (Here's Why)
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T17:45:00.238993+00:00
scores_json:
{"scroll_stop_power": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This names an injustice every introvert has experienced. The word 'arrogance' is a trigger \u2014 being falsely accused of it creates immediate emotional charge. The viewer HAS to know why this keeps happening."}, "completion_probability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "The reveal is genuinely satisfying \u2014 it explains the mechanism AND validates the viewer. They'll watch to the end because the explanation exonerates them from a false accusation they've carried for years."}, "share_save_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is 'I need to send this to my extroverted friend so they finally understand me' content. Also saveable as self-validation. High social currency for anyone who's been misread."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "The source post has 28 comments with high engagement score (0.95). Multiple posts in this cluster touch the same wound \u2014 being quiet and misunderstood. Clear pattern of people seeking this exact explanation."}, "visual_potential": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Split-screen perception vs reality works well. Can show the same body language with different internal monologue overlays. Not as visually rich as a mechanism video but strong for psychology content."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is permanent human psychology. Social anxiety and introversion aren't going anywhere. The misattribution of silence as arrogance is a timeless social dynamic."}}

analysis_json:
{"target_audience": "Someone who just got told they 'seem unapproachable' at work or a party, and is lying in bed replaying the moment, wondering why this keeps happening to them", "opening_hook": "You've been called arrogant. Cold. Stuck up. And the whole time you were thinking 'I'm literally terrified of everyone in this room.' So why does your fear look like superiority to everyone else?", "structure": "1. THE ACCUSATION (0-15s): Name the experience \u2014 being called arrogant/cold/stuck-up when you were actually terrified. Create recognition.\n2. THE THREE SIGNALS (15-45s): Break down the specific behaviors: avoiding eye contact, minimal speech, not initiating. Show how each one reads as superiority.\n3. THE TWIN PROBLEM (45-75s): Reveal that confident people do the EXACT same behaviors \u2014 but the internal state is opposite. Anxiety and arrogance are behavioral twins.\n4. THE VALIDATION + ESCAPE (75-100s): It's not your fault \u2014 you're sending protection signals that look like rejection signals. One small shift: signal warmth through micro-expressions (brief smile, head tilt) to break the arrogance read without changing your personality.", "verdict_reasoning": "This is a perfect 'Why You Do That' video: names a universal behavior (being quiet), explains why it's misread (behavioral twins with arrogance), and validates the viewer (it's not your fault, it's a signal mismatch). All 6 gates pass with strong scores across every dimension.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: why_you_do_that
suggested_title: You're Not Lazy. Your Brain Is Missing a Start Button.
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T17:45:00.238993+00:00
scores_json:
{"scroll_stop_power": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "The experience is viscerally universal. Anyone who has ever procrastinated will feel named. The reframe from 'lazy' to 'missing start button' creates immediate curiosity and relief simultaneously."}, "completion_probability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "The reveal is deeply validating and the neuroscience is genuinely illuminating. Viewer will stay because they're finally getting an explanation for something they've hated about themselves."}, "share_save_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is a 'send to everyone I know' video. Partners who don't understand. Friends who call you lazy. Yourself to rewatch when you're stuck. High save-to-revisit potential."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Two Reddit posts on this exact experience with 0.998 and 0.986 scores, 206 and 127 comments respectively. People are actively discussing this specific phenomenon."}, "visual_potential": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Can show: split-screen of neurotypical brain 'ignition' vs. weak signal, person frozen at desk, the contrast between stuck-to-start and hyperfocused-once-going. Not visually stunning but very relatable."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is permanent neuroscience about how executive function works. Will be relevant forever. Not tied to any trend or current event."}}

analysis_json:
{"target_audience": "Someone at 11pm who spent the entire evening 'about to start' something and is now feeling like garbage about themselves. They see this title and finally understand it was never about effort.", "opening_hook": "You know what you need to do. You have time. You want to do it. You're even stressed about not doing it. But you're just... sitting there. You're not scrolling. You're not distracted. You're stuck. And you've been calling yourself lazy for years. You're not.", "structure": "1. NAME THE EXPERIENCE (0-15s): You know what you need to do. You want to do it. You're stressed about it. And you're just... stuck. You've been calling yourself lazy. You're not. 2. THE NEUROSCIENCE (15-50s): Task initiation is a separate executive function. Your prefrontal cortex generates a specific signal to begin voluntary actions. Some brains have a weak or delayed signal. It's like having a car with a broken ignition \u2014 engine works, gas is full, you just can't turn it on. 3. THE PARADOX EXPLAINED (50-75s): This is why once you DO start, you can work for hours. Your brain isn't broken at doing \u2014 it's broken at beginning. 4. THE WORKAROUND (75-100s): External ignition sources bypass the broken switch: body doubling, timers, starting in the middle of a task instead of the beginning. Your willpower was never the problem.", "verdict_reasoning": "Perfect channel fit \u2014 names a universal behavior, explains the neuroscience, validates the viewer. All 6 gates pass. This is the platonic ideal of a 'Why You Do That' video.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: why_you_do_that
suggested_title: You're Not a Night Owl. Your Brain Runs 90 Minutes Behind.
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T17:45:00.238993+00:00
scores_json:
{"scroll_stop_power": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "The premise names the exact behavior ('night owl') and immediately reframes it with a specific number ('90 minutes'). Anyone who has ever struggled with sleep timing will stop."}, "completion_probability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "The reveal is validating, not shaming. Viewer gets to learn they're not lazy\u2014they're biologically different. This is the kind of content people watch twice and screenshot."}, "share_save_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is 'I need to send this to everyone who has ever judged me for sleeping late' content. High social currency for anyone who has been called lazy."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Multiple high-engagement Reddit posts (198 comments, 346 comments) directly about this exact experience. The TIL post about circadian rhythm research was the genesis of this hook."}, "visual_potential": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Can show melatonin graphs, circadian rhythm diagrams, split-screen of two people at the same clock time but different 'body times.' Not as visceral as a physical mechanism but very workable."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Human biology doesn't change. Sleep struggles are permanent. This will be relevant forever."}}

analysis_json:
{"target_audience": "Someone lying in bed at 11:47 PM, scrolling their phone, feeling guilty about not being asleep yet\u2014again. Or someone who just got criticized for being late to work because they couldn't wake up.", "opening_hook": "You've been calling yourself a night owl your whole life. Your parents called it lazy. Your boss calls it unprofessional. But here's what no one told you: your brain might be physically incapable of feeling tired at 10 PM. And there's a number that proves it.", "structure": "1. HOOK (0-15s): Name the 'night owl' identity and the shame attached to it. Tease the 90-minute number. 2. THE SCIENCE (15-50s): Explain melatonin delay, circadian rhythm shifting, why your body clock is different. Use the 90-minute stat as the anchor. 3. THE CONSEQUENCE (50-80s): Why society punishes late chronotypes\u2014school start times, work schedules, moral judgment of 'sleeping in.' You've been fighting a system designed for someone else. 4. THE REFRAME (80-100s): You're not lazy. You're not broken. You're running a different operating system. What you can do: light exposure, strategic timing, stop fighting your biology.", "verdict_reasoning": "Perfect 'Why You Do That' formula: names universal behavior, removes shame, delivers scientific validation with a specific number that feels revelatory.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: why_you_do_that
suggested_title: You're Not a Night Owl. You're Afraid of Tomorrow.
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T17:45:00.238993+00:00
scores_json:
{"scroll_stop_power": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Directly challenges a claimed identity ('night owl') while promising a non-judgmental explanation. Anyone who's ever stayed up too late will feel called out."}, "completion_probability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "The reveal is genuinely satisfying\u2014it explains the prefrontal/limbic handoff in a way that makes viewers feel understood, not broken. The cycle revelation at the end provides clear takeaway."}, "share_save_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is 'tag someone who needs to see this' content. People will send to partners, roommates, themselves. High 'save for later' because it feels like self-help."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Multiple high-engagement posts about doomscrolling and phone addiction. The 'DAE not watch news' post (0.986 score, 22 comments) and doomscrolling posts show people actively discussing this behavior pattern."}, "visual_potential": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Can visualize the brain regions, show the 'calculation' moment with split screen (stressed daytime self vs. 2am phone glow), animate the cycle as a loop. Not spectacular but solid."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is human psychology, not trending topic. People have been doing this since electric lights existed. Will work indefinitely."}}

analysis_json:
{"target_audience": "Someone lying in bed at midnight, phone in hand, knowing they should sleep but unable to put it down. They see this title and feel seen.", "opening_hook": "You tell yourself you're a night owl. That you just come alive after midnight. But here's what's actually happening: at 11pm, your brain does a calculation. It weighs how much you dread tomorrow against how tired you already are. And staying up wins\u2014because as long as you're awake, tomorrow can't start.", "structure": "1. THE CALL-OUT (15s): Challenge the 'night owl' identity. Describe the 11pm calculation everyone recognizes. 2. THE NAME (25s): Introduce revenge bedtime procrastination. Origin story. Why it resonates. 3. THE BRAIN SCIENCE (40s): Prefrontal cortex vs. limbic system. Why your brain works differently at night. Why scrolling feels like the only peace you get. 4. THE CYCLE + EXIT (30s): Reveal the self-reinforcing loop. Validate that naming it is the first step. End on empowerment, not guilt.", "verdict_reasoning": "Perfect channel fit\u2014names a universal behavior, reframes identity as psychology, leaves viewer feeling understood rather than judged. All 6 gates pass with a 4.75 weighted score.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: why_you_do_that
suggested_title: You're Not Overreacting. You're 7 Years Old Again.
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T17:45:00.238993+00:00
scores_json:
{"scroll_stop_power": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "The premise directly names a universal experience (overreacting) and offers a specific, counterintuitive explanation (you're literally being a child). The age specificity '7 years old' makes it feel precise and knowable, not vague."}, "completion_probability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "The reveal is genuinely satisfying and maps onto the viewer's own life. They'll watch to understand their own reactions, and the explanation delivers\u2014it's not 'it's complicated' but a clear neurological mechanism they can actually use."}, "share_save_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is a 'text this to 3 people immediately' concept. Everyone knows someone who overreacts (or IS that person). The insight is shareable because it's compassionate, not critical\u2014it says 'you're not broken, you're wounded.'"}, "demand_signal": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The Gabor Mat\u00e9 post has solid engagement (36 comments) but more importantly, the underlying theme (why do I feel behind/lost/broken) dominates this entire cluster with 1000+ comments across posts. People are actively seeking this explanation."}, "visual_potential": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Strong visual concept: split-screen of adult/child in same pose, timeline graphics showing 'wound age' vs 'calendar age', nervous system diagrams. Can't SHOW the amygdala hijack but can represent it effectively."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is permanent psychology. Trauma responses don't expire. This video will be relevant as long as humans have childhoods."}}

analysis_json:
{"target_audience": "Someone lying in bed at 11pm replaying an argument from earlier today, still feeling ashamed about how intensely they reacted to something small.", "opening_hook": "You ever have a tiny argument\u2014someone takes your parking spot, your partner uses the wrong tone\u2014and suddenly you're screaming? And five minutes later you're thinking... what the hell was that? You weren't angry at them. You were 7 years old, and someone just made you feel small again.", "structure": "1. HOOK: Name the experience (the disproportionate meltdown everyone recognizes) 2. THE REFRAME: Introduce the 'wound age' concept\u2014your nervous system time-stamps threats, not dates 3. THE MECHANISM: How the amygdala bypasses your adult brain entirely when old wounds are triggered 4. THE RECOGNITION: Different wound ages create different reaction styles (abandonment at 4 = shutdown, humiliation at 12 = rage, etc.) 5. THE PAYOFF: Your reaction's intensity tells you exactly when you were hurt\u2014which is the first step to healing it", "verdict_reasoning": "This is a perfect 'Why You Do That' video: it names a behavior everyone does (overreacting), explains why with genuine psychological insight, and leaves the viewer feeling validated rather than broken. All 6 gates pass, and the Gabor Mat\u00e9 framework provides academic rigor the channel promises.", "sources": ["reddit", "curiosity_query"]}


channel_id: why_you_do_that
suggested_title: You Were Never Actually 'Mature for Your Age'
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T17:45:00.238993+00:00
scores_json:
{"scroll_stop_power": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "The phrase 'mature for your age' is a direct memory trigger for a massive demographic. Combining it with the implicit promise of explaining their current struggles creates an irresistible pull."}, "completion_probability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "The viewer needs the validation at the end. The core reveal reframes their entire self-narrative\u2014they won't leave before hearing it."}, "share_save_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is 'tag yourself' content. People will share it saying 'I feel so seen' or send it to friends who fit the description. It's identity-validating social currency."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "The source post has the exact language of the struggle. The ADHD subreddit post shows this crosses into clinical communities. High engagement across multiple posts about the same core experience."}, "visual_potential": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "Primarily talking head with text overlays. Could show report card language, but not a visually rich reveal. Serviceable but not the strength."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is a permanent truth about childhood development and adult functioning. Will resonate as long as schools give behavior feedback and adults struggle with motivation."}}

analysis_json:
{"target_audience": "Someone in their 20s-30s scrolling at 11pm, wondering why they can't seem to get their life together despite being the 'smart kid' growing up. They've been carrying shame about this disconnect for years.", "opening_hook": "If you were ever called 'mature for your age' as a kid, and now you're an adult who can't seem to finish anything, feels constantly overwhelmed, and wonders what happened to all that potential... those two things aren't a coincidence. They're the same thing.", "structure": "1. THE BAIT-AND-SWITCH (0-15s): Name the childhood praise and the adult struggle in the same breath. Create the 'that's me' moment. 2. THE REFRAME (15-45s): 'Mature for your age' was never maturity\u2014it was hypervigilance. Explain the compliance-performance pattern. 3. WHY IT BREAKS (45-75s): As a child, adults provided the structure. As an adult, you need internal motivation you never developed because you were too busy performing. 4. THE VALIDATION (75-100s): You're not broken. You're not lazy. You just learned to survive instead of thrive, and that's a skill gap, not a character flaw.", "verdict_reasoning": "Perfect channel fit\u2014names a specific behavior ('you were called mature for your age'), explains why you do the thing you do now (struggle to complete tasks), and validates rather than diagnoses. The self-recognition is instantaneous and the reveal is genuinely useful psychology.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: why_you_do_that
suggested_title: You're Not Lazy. Your Brain Is Exhausted From Invisible Work.
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T17:45:00.238993+00:00
scores_json:
{"scroll_stop_power": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "The phrase 'You're Not Lazy' directly names and contradicts a painful internal belief that millions hold about themselves. Anyone who has ever felt both exhausted AND guilty for 'doing nothing' will be unable to scroll past a potential explanation."}, "completion_probability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "The reveal is deeply validating and provides a genuine cognitive reframe. The viewer desperately wants to believe they're not lazy, and the explanation (invisible mental labor) is specific and satisfying enough to feel true without feeling like cheap comfort."}, "share_save_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is 'I need to send this to my friend who beats themselves up for being unproductive' content. It's also save-for-later content for people who want to remind themselves of this reframe when they're feeling low."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The source post has strong engagement (36 comments) and the theme appears across multiple posts in this cluster. The specific framing of 'not lazy, mentally exhausted from overthinking' clearly resonates."}, "visual_potential": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Can visualize the 'invisible work' with thought bubbles, split-screen of physical stillness vs. mental chaos, brain battery draining imagery. Not spectacular visual content but strong visual metaphors available."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is a permanent truth about human cognition. People will always overthink, always feel guilty about it, and always need this reframe. Zero dependency on current events."}}

analysis_json:
{"target_audience": "Someone lying in bed at 10pm scrolling their phone, feeling guilty about everything they didn't do today, who genuinely believes they're fundamentally lazy but can't explain why they feel so tired when they 'did nothing.'", "opening_hook": "You've spent the last hour doing nothing. But your brain? It's been rehearsing a conversation you might have tomorrow, replaying something awkward you said three years ago, and planning four different versions of how your week could go. You're not lazy. You're exhausted from work nobody can see\u2014including you.", "structure": "1. THE ACCUSATION: Name the feeling\u2014you 'did nothing' but you're exhausted, and you hate yourself for it (15 sec). 2. THE INVISIBLE LABOR: Reveal what your brain was actually doing\u2014rehearsing, replaying, overplanning (30 sec). 3. THE MECHANISM: Explain ego depletion and why this invisible work drains the same battery as visible work (30 sec). 4. THE REFRAME: You're not lazy, you're running on empty before you start. The fix isn't discipline\u2014it's catching the overthinking (30 sec).", "verdict_reasoning": "This is the platonic ideal of a 'Why You Do That' video\u2014it names a universal behavior (calling yourself lazy while feeling exhausted), explains the hidden mechanism (invisible mental labor draining cognitive budget), and validates the viewer without lecturing them. All 6 gates pass cleanly.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: why_you_do_that
suggested_title: You're Not Replaying That Argument. You're Trying to Win It.
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T17:45:00.238993+00:00
scores_json:
{"scroll_stop_power": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This behavior is near-universal but almost never discussed. The title immediately names something the viewer is probably doing RIGHT NOW or did today. The framing 'trying to win it' adds a layer of insight that makes them need to understand."}, "completion_probability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "The reveal is genuinely satisfying\u2014it reframes a 'weird' behavior as a protective mechanism. Viewer goes from feeling embarrassed to feeling understood. The nervous system explanation is credible and novel to most people."}, "share_save_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is textable content. 'Oh my god this explains why I can't stop replaying that conversation with my mom.' People will send this to friends who they've complained to about the original argument."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The r/intrusivethoughts post has 0.97 score and the topic of conflict rumination appears across multiple posts in this cluster. The 187-comment toxic behavior thread shows high engagement on self-recognition content."}, "visual_potential": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Can visualize the 'argument loop' with split screen of real event vs imagined replay. Bed/shower/driving scenes are relatable. Brain/nervous system graphics for the explanation. Not spectacular but sufficient."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is fundamental human psychology. People have been doing this since language existed. Will be relevant forever."}}

analysis_json:
{"target_audience": "Someone lying in bed at 11pm still mentally arguing with their coworker, boss, or family member from earlier that day\u2014feeling slightly crazy for not being able to let it go", "opening_hook": "You know that thing where the argument ended three hours ago... but you're still in it? You're in the shower perfecting your comeback. You're driving and suddenly you're winning. You're not crazy. Your brain is doing exactly what it's supposed to do.", "structure": "1. THE CALL-OUT (0-15s): Name the behavior vividly\u2014shower arguments, driving comebacks, lying awake winning. 2. THE SCIENCE (15-50s): Fight/flight response with nowhere to go. Unspent energy. Brain seeking resolution. 3. THE REFRAME (50-80s): You're not petty or obsessive. This is your nervous system protecting you. The 'winning' fantasy is safety-seeking. 4. THE RELEASE (80-110s): Brief practical insight\u2014the loop breaks when you give your body the 'safe' signal it's looking for, not when you perfect your argument.", "verdict_reasoning": "Perfect channel fit\u2014names a universal private behavior, explains why you do it, validates rather than diagnoses. All gates pass. Near-ceiling scores across metrics.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: why_you_do_that
suggested_title: You Rehearse Ordering Coffee. Your Brain Thinks It's a Crisis.
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T17:45:00.238993+00:00
scores_json:
{"scroll_stop_power": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is the platonic ideal of 'Why You Do That' content. The behavior is universal (almost everyone does this), specific (ordering coffee, not 'social situations'), and never questioned. Viewer will think 'wait, I literally did this today.'"}, "completion_probability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "The reveal is validating, not shaming. Viewer stays to find out they're not broken\u2014they're actually socially intelligent. The 'it's a feature not a bug' reframe is deeply satisfying."}, "share_save_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is PEAK 'I need to send this to someone' content. Viewers will tag friends, text partners, comment 'I feel so seen.' The behavior is relatable enough that sharing it creates connection."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "10 comments on the Reddit post with high engagement. The original poster's description shows this resonates deeply. Cross-validated by general psychology content performance on the behavior."}, "visual_potential": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Can show: person mouthing words in car, split screen of 'mental rehearsal' vs. 'actual interaction,' brain scan graphics, relatable coffee shop b-roll. Not a mechanism reveal but strong talking-head potential."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Human social cognition doesn't change. This will be relevant as long as people order coffee and have brains. Zero news-cycle dependency."}}

analysis_json:
{"target_audience": "Someone in their car, about to walk into a Starbucks, who just caught themselves silently mouthing their order\u2014and wonders why they're 'like this.'", "opening_hook": "You're sitting in your car. You're about to order a coffee. And you're rehearsing. 'Hi, can I get a medium oat milk latte?' You imagine their response. You plan your payment. You script the thank you. It's not anxiety. So what is it?", "structure": "1. THE CALL-OUT (0-15s): Name the exact behavior\u2014rehearsing your coffee order, planning the payment, scripting the thank you. Make viewer feel immediately seen. 2. THE MISDIRECT (15-45s): Explain why it's NOT anxiety\u2014distinguish from social anxiety disorder. Introduce cognitive offloading as the real mechanism. 3. THE EVOLUTION (45-75s): Your brain treats all social interactions as tribal survival scenarios. The prefrontal cortex doesn't know the difference between a job interview and a latte order. 4. THE REFRAME (75-105s): People who do this have higher social intelligence. You're not overthinking\u2014you're pre-thinking. This frees working memory for the actual interaction. You're not broken. You're optimized.", "verdict_reasoning": "Perfect channel fit: names a universal behavior viewers do but never question, explains it with academic rigor, and leaves them feeling validated rather than broken. All 6 gates pass. This is exactly why the channel exists.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: why_you_do_that
suggested_title: Your Brain Isn't Torturing You. It's Running a Simulation.
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T17:45:00.238993+00:00
scores_json:
{"scroll_stop_power": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "The premise triggers the exact phenomenon it describes. Viewers will literally experience a cringe memory flash while reading the hook. You cannot scroll past something that just happened inside your head."}, "completion_probability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "The reveal is deeply validating\u2014'you're not broken, your brain is protecting you.' Viewers will stay to hear they're normal, and the evolutionary explanation gives them something to tell others."}, "share_save_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is exactly the kind of content people send to friends with 'omg this is so us' or save for when they're having a cringe-replay moment at 3am. High social currency."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "87 comments on the source post, r/ADHD context but the phenomenon is universal. Massive unmet demand for explanation of this specific experience."}, "visual_potential": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "Relatable talking-head style works well. Could show brain regions lighting up, but mainly works through shared experience rather than visual spectacle."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is a permanent feature of human psychology. Will be relevant as long as humans have brains and social anxiety."}}

analysis_json:
{"target_audience": "Someone lying in bed at 2am who just experienced a cringe replay and googled 'why does my brain do this' or scrolling after a socially awkward day", "opening_hook": "You're lying in bed, almost asleep, and suddenly your brain pulls up that thing you said at a party in 2016. Full detail. The exact words. The look on their face. And you physically cringe, even though no one else on Earth remembers this happened. Here's the weird part: your brain thinks it's helping you.", "structure": "1. HOOK: Name the 3am cringe replay experience in vivid detail (15 sec) | 2. THE MECHANISM: Introduce involuntary autobiographical memory and amygdala threat-tagging (30 sec) | 3. THE MISMATCH: Explain why your brain treats social embarrassment like a lion attack\u2014evolutionary psychology (30 sec) | 4. THE FIX: Counterintuitive reveal that acceptance (not suppression) reduces frequency, plus validation that this means your brain is working correctly (30 sec)", "verdict_reasoning": "Perfect channel fit\u2014names a universal involuntary behavior, explains the science, and validates the viewer ('you're not broken'). All 6 gates pass with a 4.7 weighted score.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: why_you_do_that
suggested_title: Why Getting Your Life Together Makes You Depressed
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T17:45:00.238993+00:00
scores_json:
{"scroll_stop_power": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This names a secret shame. Anyone who's tried to 'get their life together' and felt worse will physically stop. The paradox is irresistible."}, "completion_probability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "The viewer NEEDS the explanation. They're not watching for entertainment \u2014 they're watching for relief. They'll stay until they understand why they're not broken."}, "share_save_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is exactly the kind of thing you text to a friend who just quit drinking or started their 'new chapter' and seems off. It's also save-worthy for personal reference."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "104 comments on the source post, 0.962 score. The cluster has multiple posts about isolation recovery and feeling like failures. This is a live nerve."}, "visual_potential": {"score": 3, "reasoning": "This is more conceptual than visual, but can use: before/after life montage, brain diagrams showing removed coping pathways, the 'clean room, empty feeling' visual motif."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is a permanent truth about human psychology. Every generation has their version of 'I cleaned up my act and felt worse.' Timeless."}}

analysis_json:
{"target_audience": "Someone in their mid-20s who just 'cleaned up their act' and is lying awake at 2am wondering why they feel emptier than when they were 'wasting their life'", "opening_hook": "You finally did it. Quit the games. Started exercising. Deleted social media. Got serious about your life. And then... you felt worse than ever. You're not broken. Your brain is doing exactly what it's supposed to do.", "structure": "1. THE PARADOX (0-20s): Name the experience \u2014 you did everything right and felt worse. Validate that this is common. 2. THE MECHANISM (20-50s): Explain coping mechanism removal \u2014 your brain lost its anesthesia before building new tools. 3. STRUCTURE VS MEANING (50-80s): Clean room \u2260 fulfilled life. You built a container but haven't filled it yet. 4. THE REFRAME (80-100s): This emptiness is progress. You're finally feeling what you were running from. That's the beginning of real change, not a sign you failed.", "verdict_reasoning": "Perfect channel fit \u2014 names a behavior everyone does but nobody questions, explains the psychology, and validates the viewer rather than lecturing them. All 6 gates pass with a 4.7 weighted score.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: why_you_do_that
suggested_title: You're Not Productive at Night. You're Running From Tomorrow.
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T17:45:00.238993+00:00
scores_json:
{"scroll_stop_power": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Near-universal behavior that viewers do but have never questioned. The phrase 'productive at night' triggers instant self-recognition. The reframe 'running from tomorrow' creates immediate curiosity gap."}, "completion_probability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Viewer needs to know WHY they do this. The reveal that it's about autonomy, not productivity, is genuinely surprising and makes them feel understood rather than broken."}, "share_save_potential": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "High 'I need to send this to my partner who does this' energy. Also strong 'this explains my entire life' save potential."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The DoesAnybodyElse post directly asks this question. The 622-comment ADHD thread shows massive engagement on related time-management shame. Cross-cluster signals from burnout/tiredness posts suggest widespread resonance."}, "visual_potential": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Strong relatable b-roll: midnight closet organizing, 2am Wikipedia spirals, suddenly deep-cleaning at 11pm. Clock graphics showing the 'danger zone' hours."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is a permanent truth about human psychology and modern work-life imbalance. Will resonate as long as people have obligations."}}

analysis_json:
{"target_audience": "Someone scrolling at midnight who just reorganized their desk instead of going to bed, feeling both energized and vaguely guilty", "opening_hook": "It's 11pm. You should be asleep. Instead, you're suddenly reorganizing your entire closet, researching trip itineraries, or finally starting that project you've ignored for weeks. You're not a night owl. Your brain is doing something much weirder.", "structure": "1. THE BEHAVIOR (0-20s): Name the 11pm productivity surge \u2014 reorganizing, planning, starting projects. You've done this. 2. THE WRONG EXPLANATION (20-40s): You're not a night owl. Your chronotype isn't the issue. 3. THE REAL REASON (40-90s): Revenge bedtime procrastination \u2014 your brain resisting the loss of autonomous time. Research on control and daytime obligations. 4. THE VALIDATION (90-110s): This isn't a character flaw. It's a signal your waking hours don't feel like yours. The fix isn't discipline \u2014 it's reclaiming daytime autonomy.", "verdict_reasoning": "Perfect channel fit \u2014 names a universal behavior, explains why you do it, validates rather than diagnoses. All 6 gates pass with a 4.65 weighted score.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: why_you_do_that
suggested_title: Your Happy Memories Are Starting to Hurt. Here's Why.
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T17:45:00.238993+00:00
scores_json:
{"scroll_stop_power": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "Names an experience the viewer is actively having. 'Your happy memories are starting to hurt' is impossible to scroll past if it's true for you \u2014 and it's true for almost everyone over 25."}, "completion_probability": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "The hook opens a wound, and the video promises healing. Viewer needs to know: Am I broken? Why is this happening? What do I do? They'll stay for all three answers."}, "share_save_potential": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "High 'I need to send this to my friend who's been weirdly sad lately' energy. Also high save-for-later potential. Not quite 'text immediately' but close."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "35 comments on the source Showerthought, plus the 'texture of memories' post (9 comments) and direct question about nostalgia's dual nature. Multiple posts circling the same insight confirms demand."}, "visual_potential": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Can use split-screen past/present, photo albums with emotional color grading shifts, graph showing the 'flip point' where comfort becomes contrast. Not mechanism-based but emotionally visual."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is a permanent truth about human psychology. Will be relevant as long as humans have memories and the capacity for regret."}}

analysis_json:
{"target_audience": "Someone scrolling at 11pm who just saw an old photo and felt unexpectedly sad. Someone who's been thinking 'why does looking at happy memories make me feel worse?' Someone in their mid-20s to 40s experiencing a transition period (post-college, career doubt, relationship change).", "opening_hook": "You used to love looking at old photos. Remember that? You'd scroll through them and feel warm. But lately... something changed. Now when you see a picture from 2019, from college, from that trip with friends \u2014 it doesn't feel like comfort anymore. It feels like... an accusation. Like your past is judging your present. You're not imagining this. There's a name for what's happening to you.", "structure": "1. THE FLIP \u2014 Name the moment when nostalgia stopped feeling good (0-20s)\n2. THE SCIENCE \u2014 Contrastive vs restorative nostalgia, why your brain does this (20-50s)\n3. THE TWIST \u2014 Those 'golden' memories weren't golden when you lived them (50-80s)\n4. THE REFRAME \u2014 Painful nostalgia is a signal about your present, not a verdict on your past (80-110s)", "verdict_reasoning": "Perfect channel fit \u2014 names a universal behavior ('looking at old photos and feeling sad') that everyone does but hasn't examined, explains the psychology, and leaves the viewer feeling validated rather than broken. All 6 gates pass cleanly.", "sources": ["reddit"]}


channel_id: why_you_do_that
suggested_title: You Drew Secret Bases as a Kid. Here's What Your Brain Was Really Doing.
verdict: MAKE_NOW
research_status: pending
video_gen_status: pending
prompt_version: v3
created_at: 2026-02-14T17:45:00.238993+00:00
scores_json:
{"scroll_stop_power": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is a perfect self-recognition hook. The behavior is SO specific and SO universal that viewers will literally gasp when they realize they did this."}, "completion_probability": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The reveal is genuinely satisfying \u2014 learning WHY you did something weird validates your childhood self. Only docking one point because the explanation is psychological rather than narrative."}, "share_save_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is a 'send to every group chat' video. People will tag friends saying 'WE ALL DID THIS.' Nostalgia + shared experience = viral sharing mechanics."}, "demand_signal": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "The Reddit post hit 0.976 relevance with immediate recognition in comments. DAE posts that get engagement indicate universal behavior people want validated."}, "visual_potential": {"score": 4, "reasoning": "Can show actual childhood drawings, MS Paint recreations, split-screen of different kids' bases showing the same patterns. Not spectacular visuals but strong enough."}, "evergreen_potential": {"score": 5, "reasoning": "This is permanent human developmental psychology. Kids will draw secret bases forever. The video will work in 10 years."}}

analysis_json:
{"target_audience": "Anyone 18-40 scrolling at night who suddenly remembers doing this exact thing as a kid and has a flash of nostalgic recognition", "opening_hook": "You did this. Don't lie to me. You sat down with crayons or MS Paint and drew an elaborate underground base. It had tunnels. It had traps. It had a control room. You labeled everything. Nobody told you to do this. So why did you?", "structure": "1. THE CALL-OUT (0-15s): Name the behavior with specific details (MS Paint, tunnels, traps, cameras) \u2014 force recognition. 2. THE QUESTION (15-30s): Why did every kid independently invent this? Nobody taught us. 3. THE PSYCHOLOGY (30-75s): Developmental need for autonomy, threat mastery, spatial reasoning. Break down each element (traps = controlling threats, hidden = escaping adult oversight, complexity = competence signaling). 4. THE VALIDATION (75-90s): You weren't weird. You were building a mental model of what being in control feels like. Your brain was preparing you for independence.", "verdict_reasoning": "Perfect channel fit \u2014 names a specific universal behavior, explains the psychology, validates the viewer. This IS the 'Why You Do That' format executed flawlessly.", "sources": ["google_news", "reddit"]}


