PAGE-LEVEL — the biggest gap: the page never says what Maki Vici actually is — an app that counts camera-verified push-ups. Since we're promoting the app (not the sweepstakes), the most differentiating, trust-building fact is absent. One clause fixes it — best home is Pillar I: "Complete your daily press-up quota, camera-verified." It answers the visitor's silent objection ("how would you know I did them?") and separates this from every habit tracker on earth.

Deliberately left alone: the headline (parallel, punchy, earns its size), "Earn Your Stripes," the warrior@empire.com / Britannia placeholders (charm, zero comprehension cost), and "No spam, just pure discipline" — best microcopy on the page.

Flag — I added this legal line, so judge it with that in mind: it names sweepstakes explicitly in the footer. If the direction is to promote the app and keep rewards vague (and the lede + Pillar III drop "sweepstakes" per the other notes), this can slim down to: "Full rules published at launch. Must be 18+." Keeping the fuller version is also defensible as forward legal cover — coupled decision with those two notes.

Tradeoff to weigh, not an error: every extra form field costs signups — field reduction is one of the most consistent findings in form research. If country only matters for prize eligibility, capture email alone here and ask location in-app at onboarding (which already collects country + state). Counter-argument: eligibility data on the list from day one. It is correctly marked Optional today.

Suggest: "Enter before the gates open. Test the first mechanics and shape what gets built."

Why: three registers collide in one sentence — military HR ("priority deployment access"), aviation ("test-fly"), agile ("product iterations") — and none of them are Roman, or human. "Before the gates open" keeps the world; "shape what gets built" keeps the real promise.

Suggest: "Lock in the founding price for anything premium we ever ship. Forever."

Why: "eternal grandfathered price tier" stacks jargon on jargon — "grandfathered" is US insurance-speak, and "eternal" already does its job. A page asking for email before the product exists is selling trust; plain promises read more trustworthy than clever ones.

Suggest: "A permanent mark on your profile that no one after you can earn. Proof you rode ahead."

Why: "profile distinction identifying you as part of" is HR language. "No one after you can earn" states the actual exclusivity mechanism plainly — and "rode ahead" teaches what a procursator is by using it. Pairs with the CTA note.

Suggest: "Secure your place today and claim spoils reserved for the founding cohort alone:"

Why: "By securing… you instantly earn" is throat-clearing, and "exclusive" + "reserved only" says the same thing twice. One imperative, one scarcity claim, said harder.

Suggest: "Every completed quota earns its spoils. Real reps, real rewards."

Why (per YT's direction): the page promotes the app, not the sweepstakes — and this sentence is currently the most explicit prize-mechanics line on the page. Keep The Spoils mythic, echo the tagline where the value lands, and save mechanics for onboarding. ("Translates directly into" is spreadsheet language either way.)

If some concreteness is wanted: "Every completed quota earns entries toward real rewards."

Suggest: "Daily Stoic wisdom, from Marcus Aurelius to Seneca. An iron mind to match the body."

Why: "Unlock curated daily doses" is app-store filler, and "anchor your physical progression" is brochure-speak. Naming Marcus Aurelius and Seneca is instant credibility with exactly this audience — and "iron mind" deliberately repeats the hero's "forge an iron mind." Repeating your key phrase is a feature, not a bug.

Suggest: "build your empire brick by brick."

Why: empires aren't layered; bricks are countable and physical, like reps — and it echoes Augustus finding Rome a city of brick and leaving it marble. Tiny change, more Roman, more muscle.

Keep this heading. Change the BUTTON below to "Enlist in the Vanguard" and add one line under the heading: "The procursatores rode ahead of the legion. So will you."

Why: the button is the moment of commitment, and right now it asks a cold visitor to become a word they can't parse. Clarity beats cleverness at the CTA — one of the most replicated findings in conversion work. The one-line definition turns the Latin from an obstacle into world-building: you keep the mystique and the signup. Trivial to implement, easy to A/B later.

Suggest: "turn your discipline into real rewards."

Why (per YT's direction): we're promoting the app, not the sweepstakes — "Real Reps. Real Rewards." is vague on purpose. So the hero shouldn't be where the mechanic gets named. Drop "sweepstake" here and let the rewards stay mythic.

(If the word does stay anywhere: "sweepstakes" with the s — that's the standard US term.)

Decide once: press-up or push-up. My vote: push-up.

Why: the app itself says push-up everywhere (Ludus, calibration, camera flow), and YouTube traffic will skew American. Ad → page → app should use one word; every synonym is a tiny "wait, is this the same thing?" If the British voice is a deliberate brand choice, keep press-up — but then use it in-app too. The ask is consistency, not dialect.

Suggest: "pairs daily Stoic philosophy with calisthenics."

Why: "Stoic" is the word this audience already follows (Daily Stoic, Ryan Holiday — an audience millions deep). "Roman philosophy" owns none of that pull, and Pillar II already says "The Stoic Mind," so this also makes the page agree with itself. Rule of thumb: Stoic for the ideas, Roman for the world.

This is an untested statement and does not take into account the perspectives of those contributing to the publishers' revenue. The Rights Retention Strategy (RRS) relies on the author's accepted manuscript (AAM) and for an AAM to exist and to have the added value from peer-review a Version of Record (VoR) must exist. Libraries recognise this fundamental principle and continue to subscribe to individual journals of merit and support lucrative deals with publishers. From some (not all) librarians' and possibly funders' perspectives these statements could undermine any mutual respect.