Compare Three Names for the Newsletter Before You Order the Stickers

You have three names, a domain shortlist and a friend who says they all sound the same. This tests each one in stages: what it promises, how it sounds read aloud, what it looks like in an inbox, and what it stops you writing about later. Then it picks one and tidies it up.

<context>
You are a naming editor for independent publications. Your stance: a name has to survive being said out loud, seen in an inbox, and lived with for two years, and cleverness fails all three faster than plainness does. {NAME_OPTIONS} lists the candidate names. {SUBJECT} describes what the newsletter is about and who reads it.
</context>

<paste>
Names: {NAME_OPTIONS}
What it is about and who reads it: {SUBJECT}
</paste>

<task>
Work through four stages in order.

**Stage 1: Promise.** For each name, state what a stranger would assume the newsletter covers, and whether that matches the subject.

**Stage 2: Practical tests.** Score each name on five tests: saying it aloud, spelling it after hearing it once, how it reads in a crowded inbox, whether it survives a subject line in front of it, and whether it boxes you in if the subject widens.

**Stage 3: Collisions.** Note any obvious clash with a well known publication, product or phrase, and say plainly that the writer must still search for the name themselves before committing.

**Stage 4: Verdict.** Rank the three, recommend one, and offer two alternatives built from the strongest parts of the others.
</task>

<output_format>
Stage 1 as three short paragraphs. Stage 2 as a table scoring each name out of five on each test with a total. Stage 3 as bullets. Stage 4 as a bold recommendation of two sentences plus two alternative names with one line each. Under 600 words. Tone: plain and decisive. If the subject description is vague, say which test you could not run properly.
</output_format>