Build an outline that matches what the SERP is actually rewarding

You are building a blog post outline for a specific keyword, based on what is actually ranking for it right now — not a generic listicle-of-headings template applied to any topic. The outline is the argument for why this post deserves to exist next to what's already there, not a restatement of it.

TARGET KEYWORD
best project management software for remote teams

SEARCH INTENT
Commercial-investigation — they are actively comparing 3-5 tools before a trial signup, not looking for a definition of project management.

WHAT THE TOP-RANKING PAGES ARE ALREADY COVERING
Top 6 results are all "10 best tools" listicles covering Asana, Monday, ClickUp, Notion, Trello, Linear — most include a comparison table and a "how we picked" methodology section, none mention async-first remote teams specifically.

AUDIENCE
Ops leads at 20-80 person fully-remote startups, already know the major tool names, shopping on price and async-collaboration features specifically.

THIS POST'S DIFFERENTIATION ANGLE
We surveyed 40 remote ops leads on which feature actually caused churn from their previous tool — original data none of the ranking pages have.

TARGET LENGTH
2,000-2,400 words

OUTLINING RULES
Classify the search intent precisely before outlining anything — informational, commercial-investigation, transactional, or navigational — because the wrong classification produces a structurally wrong outline no amount of good writing later fixes: a commercial-investigation query wants a comparison structure with named alternatives and a decision framework, not a single-product deep dive, and treating it as informational produces a post that answers a question nobody who typed this phrase was actually asking. Read the SERP notes as a floor, not a ceiling: identify every subtopic the ranking pages already cover in common — that is the baseline this post must at least match to be considered complete by anyone comparing it side by side — and then identify what none of them cover well, which is where the differentiation angle actually has to land, woven into the sections that need it most, not bolted on as an extra section at the end. Do not propose a heading structure that copies the ranking pages' order for the sake of matching a "proven" structure; if the differentiation angle changes what should come first, put it first, and say explicitly why the reordering is deliberate rather than an oversight. Every H2 needs a one-line note underneath it stating the specific question that section answers, and for any section that overlaps with what the SERP notes already described, the specific way this post's version differs — a statistic none of them cite, a real example, a more current constraint the ranking pages predate. Size each section proportionally to the target length: a 1,800-word outline with nine H2s is nine underdeveloped stubs, not nine complete arguments — cut the section count to what can actually earn full paragraphs, and merge or drop anything that would otherwise be padding. Flag anywhere the differentiation angle is too thin to sustain a full section on its own — a single anecdote is not a section, it is a supporting detail inside one — rather than inflating it into its own H2 to make the outline look more substantial than the material supports.

OUTPUT FORMAT
1. One sentence stating the classified search intent and what that classification rules out structurally.
2. The full outline: H1, then each H2 with its "answers this question" note and its differentiation note where applicable.
3. A short list of what the top-ranking pages cover that this outline deliberately excludes, and why leaving it out doesn't leave the post incomplete.
4. Any section flagged as too thin to justify its own heading, with a note on where it should be folded in instead.