---
name: fascination-topic-translator
description: Turn an internal expert, academic, technical, spiritual, professional, or niche-specific idea into truthful, mass-market content topics in plain audience language. Use when choosing or packaging content topics, translating jargon into curiosity-led titles or hooks, adapting one idea across niches or awareness levels, or checking whether a topic is understandable and worth clicking. Do not use for full scripts, content calendars, visual plans, or post-publication analysis.
---

# Fascination Topic Translator

## What this skill does

It separates the truth inside an idea from the language used to sell attention to it. It then turns that truth into topic packages that a stranger can understand and care about before knowing the creator's terminology.

The topic is the doorway, not the lesson. The content must repay the doorway with the real explanation. A title is not ready just because it is understandable; it must also sound like something the audience might say or wonder in ordinary life.

Keep the output in the user's language. Use ordinary words, concrete situations, and roughly seventh-grade reading level or simpler. Preserve uncertainty, limits, and evidence needs.

## Inputs

Ask for or extract:

- **Internal concept:** the expert term, mechanism, source idea, claim, or lesson.
- **Source idea:** the notes, study, story, observation, product, or evidence behind it. It may be brief.
- **Niche:** finance, psychology, health, history, technology, relationships, business, philosophy, fitness, education, spirituality, or another field.
- **Intended audience:** who should feel this is about them; include their situation, not just a demographic label.
- **Awareness (optional):** unaware, problem-aware, solution-aware, product-aware, or most-aware.

If awareness is missing, infer it only from the audience and request. For a broad audience with no stated pain, default to **unaware** and say that this is an assumption. If the audience clearly names a recurring pain, also offer a problem-aware route.

Optional constraints such as language, platform, length, claims to avoid, or available evidence may refine the package but may not replace the required inputs.

## First-principles model

Start here before writing titles.

1. **Desired outcome:** a relevant stranger understands the topic in one pass, feels a specific question or tension, and wants the answer.
2. **Discarded assumptions:** expertise vocabulary creates relevance; a title should explain the lesson; curiosity means hiding the answer forever; one frame fits every awareness level; broad means vague.
3. **Fundamentals:** attention needs a recognizable situation, a meaningful consequence, and an unresolved but bounded question. The explanation must be discoverable after the click. Truth, evidence, and uncertainty do not change when the packaging changes.
4. **Rebuilt chain:**

   `underlying truth → observable human consequence → audience words → curiosity frame → honest payoff`

5. **Risk test:** before producing many options, test one title with a person who does not know the field. Ask: “What do you think this is about?” and “Would you say this out loud?” If they cannot answer in simple words, the line sounds written rather than spoken, or the title promises a claim the source cannot repay, rebuild it.

## Workflow

### 1. Extract the truth

Write one sentence for the underlying truth without promotional language. Then record:

- what is known, inferred, disputed, or unknown;
- the observable behavior, event, feeling, or result;
- the conditions under which it is true;
- the strongest evidence needed;
- what the idea does **not** prove.

Keep creator language here. Do not put it in the audience-facing title unless the audience already uses it.

### 2. Translate to a human consequence

Complete these sentences in the audience's words:

- “They notice…”
- “They wonder…”
- “They feel…”
- “They keep doing…”
- “They want…”
- “They fear…”

Use scenes, objects, choices, symptoms, conversations, money, time, status, safety, belonging, or relief. Replace abstract nouns with a person doing something or seeing a result. “Loss aversion” becomes “why someone keeps a bad purchase.” “Cache invalidation” becomes “why an app still shows yesterday's truth.”

Read the draft aloud. Prefer the words a person would use in a message to a friend. A poetic phrase, clever metaphor, or polished slogan fails this step if the audience would not naturally say it.

### 3. Choose the awareness route

Use the least advanced language that can honestly promise the payoff.

| Level | What the person knows | Good entry | Keep out of the doorway |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| **Unaware** | They do not recognize a problem or solution. | secret, story, strange result, surprising fact, mystery, simple list, question. Make them notice. | the diagnosis, expert term, solution, or lesson. |
| **Problem-aware** | They recognize the pain or repeated result, not its cause. | symptoms, patterns, “why this keeps happening,” contrast, question. Name the pain, not the mechanism. | jargon and a premature fix. |
| **Solution-aware** | They know solution categories and are comparing approaches. | simple mechanism, tradeoff, failed common fix, comparison, “what changes when…” | pretending they are unaware; vague mystery with no decision value. |
| **Product-aware** | They know the product or offer. | specific outcome, proof, objection, difference, use case. | hiding the product just to create suspense. |
| **Most-aware** | They know the offer and are close to acting. | direct offer, proof, terms, next step, urgency when real. | unnecessary curiosity tricks. |

For a broad audience, prefer an unaware title and let the video move toward problem- and solution-aware explanation. For a known pain, show both unaware and problem-aware versions so the user can choose the reach-versus-specificity tradeoff.

### 4. Select a curiosity frame

Translate the same truth through the frame that best matches the human consequence. Choose one main frame and at most two supporting frames.

- **Secret:** a hidden pattern people would like to know.
- **Symptom:** a recognizable sign or list of signs.
- **Strange result:** an outcome that feels wrong, surprising, or hard to explain.
- **Story:** a person, event, experiment, or reversal that carries the idea.
- **Mystery:** a clear question with a missing cause.
- **Surprising fact:** a concrete fact that changes how a familiar thing looks.
- **List:** a bounded number of signs, mistakes, clues, or moments.
- **Question:** a personal “why” or “what if” the content can answer.
- **Contrast:** two things that seem similar but produce different results.
- **Curiosity gap:** withhold the explanation, not the subject, stakes, or eventual answer.

Avoid formula worship. A frame is useful only when it sounds like something the audience would actually say.

### 5. Draft and filter

Draft 5–8 short topic lines. Make each line pass these checks before scoring:

- one clear subject, event, or consequence;
- concrete verbs and nouns;
- no insider vocabulary unless the selected audience already uses it;
- natural spoken language: no writerly metaphor, academic phrasing, or clever line that needs interpretation;
- a question or tension remains after the first read;
- the title does not state both the key mechanism and its conclusion;
- no unsupported superlative, certainty, diagnosis, or guaranteed result;
- the content can answer the implied question with the available evidence.

Use title case only when the user's language normally does. Do not add a hook, script, thumbnail, or visual plan unless separately requested.

### 6. Score and choose

Score every finalist from 0–5 on each dimension (0 = absent, 5 = excellent):

| Dimension | 0–5 question |
| --- | --- |
| **Clarity** | Can a twelve-year-old explain it after one read, and does it sound like ordinary speech? |
| **Broad relevance** | Can the intended audience recognize a situation before knowing the field? |
| **Curiosity** | Is there a specific unanswered question rather than empty vagueness? |
| **Emotional consequence** | Does the result touch a real want, fear, loss, surprise, relief, or status concern? |
| **Novelty** | Is the angle fresh without needing exaggeration? |
| **Integrity** | Can the source truth repay the promise, with limits and evidence stated? |
| **Payoff strength** | Will the explanation change what the viewer notices, understands, or can decide? |

Total the 7 scores out of 35. Apply the naturalness and revelation gates before using the total. Reject any option that fails either gate, or that has **integrity below 4**, **payoff strength below 4**, or **clarity below 3**. Novelty cannot rescue a title that sounds unnatural or gives away its explanation. Prefer the highest total only after the rejection rules pass. A lower-scoring title may win when it is markedly safer or more useful for the selected awareness level.

### 7. Build the topic package

Return the selected topic and its reasoning using the output contract below. Keep the expert term in the hidden explanation, not in the doorway.

## Rejection rules

Reject, explain, and rewrite any title that:

- reveals the answer or mechanism before the viewer has a reason to care;
- uses insider vocabulary, labels, or theory names the audience did not ask for;
- sounds like a class, lecture, definition, or generic “how to” lesson;
- sounds like a writer's phrase, slogan, or poetic metaphor instead of ordinary audience speech;
- requires prior interest in the niche to understand the subject;
- is so vague that no one can picture a situation;
- states the main contrast or explanation so completely that little curiosity remains;
- creates fear, certainty, shame, or a promise the evidence cannot support;
- implies medical, financial, legal, or spiritual certainty without appropriate evidence;
- uses a curiosity gap the content will not repay;
- disguises a product or offer when product-aware or most-aware packaging would be clearer;
- relies on manipulation, deception, or a tactic that would harm the audience.

“Make it more mysterious” is not a reason to remove the subject, stakes, or truth. Keep the question bounded.

## Output contract

Use this structure unless the user asks for a different format:

### Topic package

- **Input:** internal concept, source idea, niche, audience, and any supplied awareness.
- **Core truth:** one plain sentence about what is actually true.
- **Human consequence:** what the audience sees, feels, does, or wants.
- **Audience language:** the exact everyday words and scenes to use; list jargon to avoid.
- **Awareness level:** selected level and why; state assumptions.
- **Clickable topic:** the strongest title/topic line.
- **Curiosity gap:** the unanswered but bounded question the topic creates.
- **Why they care before knowing the problem:** the immediate personal or social consequence.
- **Hidden explanation:** the mechanism, source language, and important nuance to reveal later.
- **Title/hook variants:** 3–6 alternatives, labeled by frame and awareness level.
- **Payoff promise:** what the content will explain, show, or let the audience decide.
- **Evidence requirements:** claims to verify, source type needed, and what must be qualified.
- **Risks:** ambiguity, overclaim, sensitivity, audience mismatch, ethical risk, or weak evidence.
- **Naturalness gate:** pass/fail, with the plain spoken wording used to test it.
- **Score:** the 0–5 rubric for each finalist and the total out of 35.
- **Rejected option(s):** useful examples of what was removed and why.

Do not silently invent evidence. If the source is thin, say “evidence needed” and narrow the promise.

## Adapting one truth across niches and awareness levels

Keep the kernel fixed: **truth + observable consequence + boundary**. Change only the wrapper:

1. Pick the new niche's familiar scene (a bill, a workout, a message, a classroom, a device, a historical decision).
2. Name the audience's desired result and feared result in their own words.
3. Choose the proof that niche can trust (data, primary source, experiment, lived example, or qualified expert).
4. Re-run the awareness table and curiosity-frame menu.
5. Preserve the same causal claim and uncertainty; do not smuggle in a stronger claim because the new niche sounds more dramatic.

For comparison, show the same kernel in a small matrix: **niche → scene → audience words → awareness frame → topic → payoff → evidence**. Keep titles distinct enough to sound native to each niche.

## References

Read [examples-and-tests.md](references/examples-and-tests.md) when you need counterexamples, cross-niche demonstrations, scoring examples, or the holdout evaluation protocol. It includes the earlier unaware/problem-aware correction and examples that are deliberately not tied to one creator or niche.

## Scope boundary

This skill owns topic choice and packaging. It does not own script writing, content calendars, visual generation, editing, or post-publication performance diagnosis.