Architect the Three Locks persuasion sequence: Lock 1 Want (sell the state), Lock 2 Trust (earn belief through proof + voice), Lock 3 Excuse (give the rational justification). Outputs the lock-by-lock blueprint that the rest of the asset writes against.
Use when planning the persuasion architecture of a sales page, VSL, or long-form email before drafting copy.
Not for writing the open (use convert-open) or the close (use convert-close) - this designs the middle architecture they bridge.
Instrucciones de origen · Vista previa de solo lectura
name
convert-three-locks
slash_command
false
pack
business-conversion
family
donahoe_method
description
Architect the Three Locks persuasion sequence: Lock 1 Want (sell the state), Lock 2 Trust (earn belief through proof + voice), Lock 3 Excuse (give the rational justification). Outputs the lock-by-lock blueprint that the rest of the asset writes against.
Use when planning the persuasion architecture of a sales page, VSL, or long-form email before drafting copy.
Not for writing the open (use convert-open) or the close (use convert-close) - this designs the middle architecture they bridge.
triggers
["architect the persuasion","three locks","donahoe three locks","want trust excuse","design the persuasion sequence","persuasion architecture","lock by lock plan","sell the state"]
negative_triggers
["write me a hook","write the close","audit my page","design the offer"]
{"lineage":"The Donahoe Method (Wayland-owned operating system); references *Cialdini's six principles of influence (Influence, 1984)*, *Halbert's want-and-justify model (Boron Letters, 1984)*, and the *AIDA architecture (Lewis, 1898)*"}
Convert Three Locks - The Persuasion Architecture
"Three things must happen - roughly in this order - before someone buys. Think of them as three locks on a door. You need to open all three. Miss one and the door stays closed." - The Donahoe Method, Framework 3
This skill produces the lock-by-lock blueprint for a conversion asset. Lock 1 (Want), Lock 2 (Trust), Lock 3 (Excuse). All three open or no sale.
The output is the architecture the asset writes against. The Open (convert-open) leads into Lock 1. The Close (convert-close) closes after Lock 3. Everything in between is the locks.
When to Use
Trigger phrases: "architect the persuasion", "three locks", "donahoe three locks", "want trust excuse", "design the persuasion sequence", "persuasion architecture", "lock by lock plan", "sell the state", /convert locks <product or brief>.
Run this skill afterconvert-four-questions and convert-temperature, and before any page-builder. The locks become the section spine of the page.
Do NOT use for:
Writing the opening hook (use convert-open)
Writing the close itself (use convert-close)
Designing the offer's value structure (use funnels-offer - different pack)
Four Questions output (from convert-four-questions) - Why You feeds Want; Why Me feeds Trust; Why This + Why Now feed Excuse.
Temperature (from convert-temperature) - calibrates how much weight each lock carries (Cool audiences load Trust heavy; Hot audiences load Excuse heavy).
Offer details - what they're buying, the price, the guarantee, any bonuses, the format.
Optional:
Available proof - anecdotes, receipts, namechecks (feeds Lock 2 specifically)
Section length budget - how many words / minutes per lock
Competing alternatives the reader has considered - affects how Lock 2 builds Trust around differentiation
out_path - caller-controlled output. Defaults via build_report_path.
The Three Locks (full method)
Lock 1 - The Want
Job: Don't sell the product. Sell the state.
Nobody buys a course. They buy the version of themselves that exists after the course. Nobody buys a supplement. They buy the feeling of waking up with energy. Nobody buys a tool. They buy the result the tool creates.
Paint the state using sensory, visceral language. "Imagine waking up, checking your phone, and seeing four new sales came in overnight" is specific and physical. "Achieve financial freedom" is a bumper sticker that means nothing.
The Want comes from specificity. The more specific the vision, the more real it feels. The more real it feels, the more they want it. The more they want it, the easier everything else becomes.
Specifications:
Sensory language - sight / sound / feel / motion
Specific scenes, not abstract states
Connected to their identity and current routine
Anchors a "before/after" - without explicitly using those words
Avoids bumper-sticker phrases ("financial freedom", "live your best life", "unlock your potential")
Examples:
✓ "Picture this: it's 7am Tuesday. You're still in bed. You roll over, check your phone, and there are six new sales notifications from the overnight - three of them at the higher tier you didn't think anyone would actually buy. You haven't even brushed your teeth yet and you've already cleared what your last job paid you in a week."
✗ "Achieve financial freedom and live the lifestyle you deserve." (zero sensory, dead phrasing)
Lock 2 - The Trust
Job: They want it. Now they need to believe it's actually possible - and that YOU'RE the person to deliver it.
Trust is built through Conversational Proof (convert-proof). But it's also built through voice. The reader trusts you because you sound like someone who's actually done it. Not reading from a script. Not hedging with qualifiers. Not "some people have found that..." - just stating what happened with the quiet certainty of someone who was there.
Conversational authority IS a trust-building mechanism. When you speak without hedging, the reader's brain categorizes you as credible. You sound like someone who knows. That's half the work done before you present a single piece of evidence.
Specifications:
Anchored to specific past results (Receipts) and specific past customers (Anecdotes / Namechecks)
Drive-By credentials slipped in, never announced
Voice is unhedged - declarative, first-person, no "some people have found"
The Because mechanism explains why the result is possible, so it doesn't feel miraculous
Trust loads cumulatively:
Skin in Game (already established in the Open by convert-open) - opens the trust account
Anecdote layer - third-party proof that the same approach works for people like the reader
Receipt layer - specific numbers that anchor belief
Mechanism layer - the Because that makes it logical, not magical
Lock 3 - The Excuse
Job: They want it. They believe it. Now they need the logical argument they'll use to explain the purchase to themselves. Or to their spouse. Or to their business partner at the next meeting.
The Excuse is the rational justification for an emotional decision that's already been made.
Specifications:
Reads almost mathematical
Reframes the price as small relative to a comparison they accept
Often lists three alternatives the price equals, to anchor against
Acknowledges the reader's skepticism explicitly, then solves for it
The Excuse pattern menu:
The Already-Spent compare:"Think about how much you've already spent on stuff that didn't work..."
The Cost-of-Not compare:"This pays for itself if you land even one client from it..."
The Trivial-Equivalent compare:"For less than the cost of one client dinner..."
The Hourly Math compare:"At your hourly rate, this saves you in week one..."
The Risk-Reversal Math:"The guarantee means the worst case is you spend zero..."
Give them the math. Let the math close the gap between "I want this" and "I bought this."
Workflow
Step 1 - Inherit the brief
Pull from convert-four-questions:
Why You → Lock 1 Want anchor (the specific cost-of-inaction is the inverse of the wanted state)
Why Me → Lock 2 Trust anchor (the seller's mirror moment)
Why This → Lock 2 Trust + Lock 3 Excuse (the mechanism is the Trust Because, the differentiation is part of the Excuse compare)
Why Now → Lock 3 Excuse (real urgency or honest compounding cost)
If convert-four-questions hasn't been run, run it now or push back. The locks have nothing to write against without it.
Step 2 - Calibrate lock weights by temperature
Pull from convert-temperature:
Temperature
Want weight
Trust weight
Excuse weight
Ice Cold
50%
35%
15%
Cool
35%
45%
20%
Warm
25%
45%
30%
Hot
20%
30%
50%
Boiling
10%
15%
75% (just the Door)
These are starting points, not laws. Adjust for sophistication overlay.
Step 3 - Architect Lock 1 Want
Write the state description. Not the offer. Not the bullet list. The version of themselves that exists after the result lands.
Then identify which sensory details it pivots on (sight / sound / feel / motion / time-of-day).
Step 4 - Architect Lock 2 Trust
Build the trust load order:
Drive-By credential (slipped, not announced)
Lead Anecdote (the customer story that mirrors the reader's situation most closely)
Receipt (the hardest, most specific number)
Mechanism Because (why this approach produces the result while alternatives don't)
Optional second Anecdote / Namecheck for breadth
Step 5 - Architect Lock 3 Excuse
Pick the Excuse pattern that fits:
Hot-temperature audiences usually need the Already-Spent compare
Cool-temperature audiences usually need the Cost-of-Not compare
B2B audiences usually need the Hourly Math + Risk-Reversal Math combined
Pre-write the math. Make sure it's defensible - fake math at this stage destroys all earlier trust.
Step 6 - Map locks to section breakdown
For a sales page, typical lock-to-section map:
Section
Lock
Hero / above-fold
(Open from convert-open)
Problem agitation
Lock 1 Want (the inverse - the cost of not having the state)
Solution intro
Lock 1 Want (the state itself)
Story / mechanism
Lock 2 Trust
Bullets / what's inside
Lock 1 Want re-anchored + Lock 2 Trust
Proof block
Lock 2 Trust
Pricing / stack
Lock 3 Excuse
Guarantee
Lock 3 Excuse
FAQ
Lock 3 Excuse
Final close
(Cascade Close from convert-close)
Step 7 - Bullshit Filter
Read each lock plan aloud. Lock 1 Want - does it paint a state someone could film? Lock 2 Trust - does it earn the belief through specific evidence? Lock 3 Excuse - would the reader say this math out loud to their spouse without flinching?
If any lock fails the read-aloud test, rewrite it.
Examples (good vs anti-pattern)
Lock 1 - Want
Donahoe-style (sells the state):
"Here's what your Tuesday looks like 90 days from now: you wake up at 7. You check your phone before you stand up. There are four new bookings from the overnight, two of them in the higher tier you weren't sure anyone would buy. You haven't done anything yet today. You haven't sent an email. You haven't run an ad. The system did its work while you were asleep, exactly the way a system is supposed to."
Anti-pattern (sells the product):
"Our comprehensive 8-week program teaches you everything you need to know about generating leads online. With 47 video lessons, 12 templates, and a private community, you'll have all the tools to succeed."
Lock 2 - Trust
Donahoe-style (earned through proof + voice):
"This isn't theory. I ran my own service business for nine years and spent the first six of them losing to whoever was running ads against my zip code - until I figured out the LSA mechanism that took my book from $11k months to $38k months in under a year. Mike, a plumber from Akron, ran the same play last quarter and went from 4 calls a week to 23. The reason it works has nothing to do with funnel tricks - it's because LSA charges per verified-intent caller, not per impression."
Anti-pattern (announces credentials, hedges):
"As an industry-leading authority with 20+ years of experience, I've helped countless entrepreneurs achieve breakthrough results. Some clients have found significant improvement in their lead generation efforts."
Lock 3 - Excuse
Donahoe-style (mathematical, defensible):
"This is $1,997. I know that sounds like a number. So let's do the math on what you've already spent: $4,400 on the Facebook agency last summer, $2,100 on the SEO retainer the year before, and roughly six months of your own time you can't get back. This pays for itself the first booked job. And if it doesn't, you get every dollar back - no forms, no calls, no 'retention specialist'. Worst case, you're down zero. Best case, you have a system that pays for itself by next month."
Anti-pattern (no math, fake urgency):
"Special pricing today only! Get this incredible system at a fraction of the regular price. Don't miss out!"
Output template
# Three Locks Architecture - <Product / Asset>**Source brief:**<linktoconvert-four-questionsoutput>**Temperature:**<IceCold / Cool / Warm / Hot / Boiling>**Asset:**<salespage / VSL / email / ad>**Lock weights:** Want <%> / Trust <%> / Excuse <%>
---
## Lock 1 - The Want**The state being sold:**> <SensoryparagraphpaintingtheirTuesdaymorning90daysfromnow>**Pivot details:**<sight / sound / feel / motion / time-of-day>**Their identity-anchor:**<howthestatetiestowhotheywanttobe>**Inversion (problem agitation framing):**<thecost-of-not-having-thisversion, usedintheproblemsection>
---
## Lock 2 - The Trust**Load order:**1. Drive-By credential - *"<theslipped-inline>"*2. Lead Anecdote - <namedperson, mirrorsituation, specificoutcome>3. Receipt - <hardestnon-roundnumberwithdate/source>4. Mechanism Because - <one-sentencewhythisworks>5. (Optional) Second Anecdote / Namecheck - <forbreadth>**Trust voice posture:**<unhedged, first-person, declarative>**Conversational authority cues:**<specificphrasesthatsignal "Iwasthere">
---
## Lock 3 - The Excuse**Excuse pattern selected:**<Already-Spent / Cost-of-Not / Trivial-Equivalent / HourlyMath / Risk-ReversalMath>**The math (pre-written):**> <Thefullmathwalkthrough, defensible, mathematical, nofakenumbers>**Spouse-test phrasing:** <"if my reader had to explain this to their spouse, they'd say...">
**Why this pattern for this temperature:**<one-linereason>
---
## Section map (locks → sections)
| Section | Lock served | Word/min budget | Lead element |
|---------|------------|-----------------|--------------|
| Above-fold | (Open) | 80-120 words | Nerve Strike |
| Problem agitation | Lock 1 (inverse) | 250-400 words | Sensory cost-of-not |
| Solution intro | Lock 1 | 200-300 words | The state painted |
| Story / mechanism | Lock 2 | 350-500 words | Mirror moment + Because |
| Bullets | Lock 1 re-anchor + Lock 2 | (see convert-bullets) | Mixed bullet types |
| Proof block | Lock 2 | 200-400 words | Lead Anecdote |
| Stack / pricing | Lock 3 | 200-350 words | Excuse pattern math |
| Guarantee | Lock 3 | 100-200 words | Risk-Reversal Math |
| FAQ | Lock 3 | 150-300 words | Common objections + Excuses |
| Final close | (Cascade) | (see convert-close) | The Door |
---
## Bullshit Filter- [ ] Lock 1 sells the state, not the product
- [ ] Lock 1 has sensory pivot details (sight / sound / feel / motion)
- [ ] Lock 1 avoids bumper-sticker phrases entirely
- [ ] Lock 2 builds trust through Anecdote + Receipt + Because (not credential dump)
- [ ] Lock 2 voice is unhedged
- [ ] Lock 3 has defensible math, not fake urgency
- [ ] Lock 3 spouse-test passes
- [ ] All three locks read aloud naturally
Notes
The locks are roughly sequential but they overlap. Lock 2 Trust loads gradually across the entire body - every Anecdote is a Trust deposit. Lock 1 Want gets re-painted in the bullet section. Lock 3 Excuse begins building the moment the price appears and continues through the close.
The most common architecture failure: skipping Lock 1 and going straight to Lock 2 + 3. Pages that are all proof and pricing without painting the state never convert because the reader hasn't been shown what they're buying into.
The second most common failure: stacking Lock 2 with credentials but no Anecdotes. Credentials without stories build authority without belief - and belief is what closes.
For sequel offers to past customers, the Three Locks compress dramatically because Lock 2 Trust is mostly already opened. A 200-word email can carry a full Three Locks pass.
This skill composes upstream with convert-four-questions (input) and convert-temperature (calibration), and downstream with convert-open (sets up Lock 1 with Skin in Game), convert-proof (does most of the Lock 2 lifting), convert-bullets (re-anchors Want, deepens Trust), and convert-close (closes after Lock 3 has done its work).
Lineage
The Three Locks is part of The Donahoe Method (Wayland-owned operating system).
Lineage references:
The want-then-justify pattern - Halbert, the Boron Letters (1984): "give them what they want, give them the reason"
