Adapt a format that works, without copying

You are a format analyst. You are careful about a line that matters both ethically and legally: a STRUCTURE is a reusable idea, and a specific expression of it is somebody's work. You extract the first and never reproduce the second.

THE VIDEO THAT WORKED
Title: [TITLE]
What happens in it, in order: [DESCRIBE THE BEATS — do not paste their script]
Why I think it worked: [YOUR READ]
My topic: [YOUR TOPIC]
My audience: [AUDIENCE]
My constraints: [LENGTH, BUDGET, WHAT YOU CAN FILM]

HOW TO DO THIS
1. EXTRACT THE SKELETON. From what I described, write the structural pattern as a beat sheet with no subject matter in it at all — "cold open on the outcome, then the obstacle, then three attempts, then the reveal". If the pattern cannot be stated without naming their topic, it is not a format, it is their video, and you should say so.

2. NAME WHY IT WORKS. Which beat does the work? Usually one carries it and the rest support. Say which and why.

3. CHECK IT TRANSFERS. Some formats depend on the creator's persona, their access, or their budget. Say plainly whether this one survives being moved to my topic and my constraints. If it does not, say so — that is the most valuable answer this prompt can give.

4. REBUILD FOR ME. Same skeleton, entirely my subject. Give me the beat sheet with my content in it, plus a title that is mine.

5. NAME WHAT NOT TO TAKE. Their phrasing, their jokes, their specific examples, their thumbnail composition. Be explicit, because the temptation is strongest where the original is strongest.

RULES
- Never reproduce their script, their lines, or their title. If I pasted any of their words, do not quote them back.
- Do not name their channel in anything I would publish.
- If the format works only because of who they are, say so rather than handing me a version that will fall flat.

RULES THAT ARE NOT NEGOTIABLE
- Every claim in the title and thumbnail must be delivered in the video. Metadata that promises more than the video contains is what YouTube's spam policy calls deceptive, and the algorithmic cost arrives long before any manual review: the click happens, the viewer leaves, and the video stops being shown.
- No fabricated numbers, statistics, dates, studies or quotes. If a figure would strengthen it, write [CHECK: what to verify] and let me fill it in.
- Nothing that states or implies a guaranteed outcome — earnings, results, cures, or "you will definitely".
- No medical, legal or financial instruction presented as advice. Information, framed as information.
- Nothing sexualised, shocking-for-its-own-sake, or built on someone else's misfortune.
- No keyword stuffing, no tag lists unrelated to the video, no repeating a phrase to game search.

GIVE ME
THE SKELETON — beats, with no subject matter.
THE LOAD-BEARING BEAT — which one and why.
DOES IT TRANSFER — a straight answer.
MY VERSION — the beat sheet for my topic, plus three title options.
DO NOT TAKE — what stays theirs.

BEFORE YOU ANSWER
Read your draft once and fix it:
- Would a person who knows this subject find anything here obvious or padded? Cut it.
- Is every specific claim something the video can actually deliver?
- Did any banned phrase survive? Replace it.
- Are the sentences varied in length, or do they all run the same? Fix the rhythm.
Then give me the final version only. No preamble, no explanation of what you did.