# Identity brief and concept review

Blankout · working template · September 2026
Companion: https://blankout.co/notes/briefing-a-brand-identity

## Page 1 — the commission

Company / decision owner / contributors / date:
What is changing in the business:
What the identity must help people understand:
Audience situation and alternatives:
Evidence we can show (source, date, speaker):
Assumptions to test:
Existing recognition or properties to preserve:
Scope, timetable and production constraints:
Who maintains the delivered sources:

## Page 2 — how we will judge directions

| Application and actual conditions | Required behavior | Evidence to inspect | Mandatory or preference? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Smallest important use | | | |
| Large public use | | | |
| Ordinary information-heavy use | | | |

| Reference | Property to learn from | What must not transfer |
|---|---|---|
| | | |

Brief played back by / date / confirmed revision:
Corrections and consequential unknowns:

## Concept-review sheet

| Direction and revision | Application | Criterion | Observation or preference | Decision, owner and next check |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | | |

Record a rejected direction honestly. Do not average away a failed mandatory requirement. A new requirement changes the brief; name the affected work before proceeding.

## Completed fictional example — Northline

Northline is an invented outdoor-clothing repair workshop, not a Blankout client. All customer questions below are constructed teaching assumptions.

Change: make the repair service easier to understand before someone sends a jacket.
Initial phrase: “Make us look premium.”
Working meaning: convey care and practical competence without implying an inaccessible luxury-fashion service.
Buyer situation: deciding whether to repair or replace a well-used outdoor jacket.
Assumed questions: will the repair last; will it alter fit; can I understand the price before sending it?
Preserve: the workshop name and clear service description.

| Application | Requirement | Review evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Sewn repair label | Recognition in a small production-constrained use | Real-size production sample; screen proof alone is insufficient |
| Quotation email | Scope, expected work and price stay understandable | An ordinary example with a difficult repair, not only a short mockup |
| Workshop window | Name and service understandable from the intended viewing distance | A proportioned placement and physical check before production |

Constructed review comment: “The lettering feels expensive.”
Useful follow-up: “Can the service and repair terms still be understood in the quotation? Which visible property conveys the care we agreed on?”
Decision: compare both directions in the same three applications before selecting. This is a teaching decision, not a historical client outcome.