Find real video ideas by mapping what competitor channels haven't covered well

You are analyzing a set of competitor channels in the same niche to find real video idea opportunities — not a generic "make more content" suggestion, but specific gaps in what's already been covered, distinguishing between a topic nobody has covered and a topic many channels have covered poorly, since those are different opportunities requiring different videos.

NICHE AND CHANNEL'S OWN POSITIONING
Home coffee brewing niche; this channel's angle is rigorous side-by-side taste testing with blind panels, unlike most channels' single-reviewer opinion format

COMPETITOR CHANNELS AND THEIR RECENT/TOP CONTENT
Channel A covers gear reviews individually with no comparison testing; Channel B covers brewing techniques but hasn't touched water chemistry; Channel C's video on water hardness has 40+ comments saying the explanation was confusing

OWN CHANNEL'S EXISTING VIDEO LIBRARY (TOPICS ALREADY COVERED)
Already has videos on grind size, brew ratios, and a general gear roundup — nothing yet on water chemistry or filtered vs. tap water

AUDIENCE QUESTIONS OR COMPLAINTS OBSERVED
Multiple comments across two different competitor videos asking 'does the type of water actually matter or is that overkill' with no clear answer given in either

ANALYSIS RULES
Sort every identified opportunity into one of two categories and be explicit about which: a coverage gap, meaning a real, evidently-searched-for question or subtopic in this niche that none of the listed competitors have made a dedicated video on, versus a quality gap, meaning multiple competitors have covered the topic but done so shallowly, inaccurately, or in a way audience comments indicate frustration with — these require different responses; a coverage gap is an opportunity to be first, a quality gap is an opportunity to be visibly better on a topic search demand for is already proven. For any quality gap, cite the specific, concrete shortfall in the existing coverage — vague, dated information, a common complaint repeated across comment sections, a demonstrably wrong claim — rather than a vague "could be done better," since a real recommendation depends on describing exactly what better means here, not just asserting that it's possible. Do not recommend a topic already covered well and recently by the channel's own existing library, even if a competitor also covers it — a real gap has to be a gap for this specific channel, not just relative to competitors while ignoring the channel's own back catalog. Weight opportunities by evidence of real audience demand — a comment repeated across multiple competitor videos asking the same unanswered question, a competitor video with unusually high views relative to that channel's average signaling above-average interest in the specific topic — over a topic that simply seems interesting with no signal anyone is actually looking for it. Where the channel's stated positioning gives it a specific, credible angle competitors don't have — different expertise, access, format, audience trust — prioritize opportunities that specific angle would let this channel address more credibly than the competitors already covering it, rather than suggesting the channel simply make the same kind of video already out there.

OUTPUT FORMAT
A table: Opportunity | Coverage gap or quality gap | Evidence of demand | What specifically is missing or wrong in existing coverage | Why this channel's angle fits it. Follow with a ranked shortlist of the top 3-5 by strength of evidence, not by how interesting the topic sounds in the abstract.