Virality Pre-Flight Report
Batch summary
What this report can and cannot claim. These are pre-publish scores. They are reliable at finding failure modes — a missing hook, pacing gaps, off-niche drift, packaging that dies at feed size — and weak at predicting hits. Nothing here has seen an audience. A high score means “no known reason to fail”, not “will succeed”. The retention curve is uncalibrated: no per-second data from this account has been fed back yet, so read its shape and its marked risk points, not its numbers.
v1.mp4
The equation · V = Idea × Hook × Retention × Emotion × ShareTrigger
Factor breakdown — v1.mp4
Every factor scored against this account’s own baseline. Select one to see what drove it.
Structural only. Blind to delivery, edit energy and audio mix — a clean structure can still bore.
52 /100
ReviseScore Breakdown
0.52 (52/100)
Geometric mean of the 5 factors — one weak factor drags the whole score down, which is what “multiplicative” means here.
Weakest Link
Idea 23/100
Why?
No account history is connected, so niche fit could not be evaluated — and the premise repeats a format already saturated this month. This is the floor breach that forces the REVISE.
Factor Impact
Multiplicative, not additive — any factor below 0.20 forces REVISE regardless of the others.
Predicted retention
3s hold ≈ 83% · completion ≈ 34%. Uncalibrated and structural — read the shape and the marked risk points, not the numbers.
What to fix — worth fixing
Notes
Optimized hooks
scores 0.72 · archetype unclassified · 11 words
| # | Rewritten hook | Archetype | Score | vs now |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | rewritten hook variant one goes here | unclassified | 0.87 | +0.14 |
| 2 | rewritten hook variant two here | demonstration | 0.87 | +0.14 |
| 3 | rewritten hook variant three | unclassified | 0.85 | +0.12 |
| 4 | rewritten hook variant four here | direct_question | 0.83 | +0.11 |
| 5 | rewritten hook variant five | before_after | 0.77 | +0.04 |
10 of 17 generated variants score above the current hook on the rules engine. Rows 1–3 are the live A/B candidates. Ranking is relative — it cannot promise real-world lift.
Pre-publish checklist
First 4 words carry no tension or payload. [hook]
65.0s with no novelty, payoff, or twist beat (limit 10s). [0.0–65.0s]
0.9 cuts/min (floor 12). [whole video]
Keyword missing from: caption. [metadata]
Tool coverage
| Tool | Class | Score | What it cannot tell you |
|---|---|---|---|
| VT-02 | B | 0.72 | Text only. It cannot see the visual half of the hook — that is VT-05’s job — and it ranks variants against each other, not against the world. |
| VT-03 | C | 0.82 | Structure only. It is blind to delivery, edit energy, music, and audio mix. A clean structure can still bore; a broken one will reliably leak. |
| VT-04 | C | 0.91 | A proxy for the platform’s retrieval space, not the space itself. It reliably catches gross drift, not fine placement. |
| VT-05 | B | 1.00 | It checks mechanics, not taste. A frame can pass every rule here and still be ugly, and platform enforcement changes faster than this rule set. |
Remaining videos — same structure
v2.mp4 REVISE score 5/100 · weakest: share_trigger at 0.00 expand ↓
3 findings worth fixing · 10-row hook table · checklist · tool coverage — identical layout to v1.
v3.mp4 REVISE score 4/100 · weakest: share_trigger at 0.00 expand ↓
4 findings worth fixing · 10-row hook table · checklist · tool coverage — identical layout to v1.
Get this for your next video.
One video in, one page out. Free while in private beta.
Join the waitlist