Supplier's note
...
Ah, here in the format example, the Technical Specifications table has Benefit instead of Application Scenario. But the structured requirements say Application Scenario. This is conflicting. The user might have made a mistake, but since the format example is more concrete, perhaps the user expects the Technical Specifications to have Benefit. Alternatively, maybe the structured requirements are separate from the format. Let me see the user's instruction again:
"Structured Requirements:
Technical Parameters Table (Columns: Feature, Specification, Application Scenario)
Customization Hint (Adjustable XX parameters to meet XX special needs)
Scenario Solution Paragraph (Example: Medium thickness fabric is suitable for making summer shirts because...)
(Act as a technical writer. Refer to the product cluster classification table given)
Create a Choose Your Model table comparing our three versions against industry benchmarks, using this structure:
..."
So the structured requirements specify that the Technical Parameters Table should have Feature, Specification, Application Scenario. But the example in the format uses Benefit. Since the user provided the structured requirements first, I should follow that. Therefore, the Technical Specifications table should have the three columns as per the structured requirements. However, in the example given in the format, they used Benefit. This is confusing. Maybe the user intended the Technical Specifications to be the Technical Parameters Table with those columns. Alternatively, perhaps the user made a mistake in the example. To resolve this, I'll proceed with the structured requirements, so the Technical Specifications table will have Feature, Specification, Application Scenario.
Now, moving forward. Let's outline each section.
Product Details: A brief intro. Mention the product is a motorcycle license plate frame made of aluminum, customizable, durable, etc.
Technical Specifications Table:
Feature | Specification | Application Scenario
Material | High-quality aluminum alloy | Ensures durability and corrosion resistance for outdoor use on motorcycles
Design | Sleek, modern, Italian flag color option | Customizable for aesthetic and national pride expressions
Mounting System | Precise pre-drilled holes | Secure mounting on various motorcycle models
Customization | Color and design flexibility | Adaptable to personal or brand-specific requirements
Wait, but the user's input says the product attributes are material:aluminum, type:motorbike,license plate frame. The image mentions the Italian flag design, so that's a design feature. The mounting holes are part of the mounting system.
Customization Guide: Adjustable parameters like hole patterns, color options, design patterns to meet specific mounting needs or aesthetic preferences.
Get Inspiration: A short paragraph encouraging customers to customize for their style or brand.
Choose Your Model Table:
Parameters like Material Thickness, Corrosion Resistance, Customization Options, etc. Since the base model is aluminum, maybe the Pro has thicker aluminum, higher corrosion resistance, more customization.
Manager's Note: Highlight three technical breakthroughs (aluminum material, customizable designs, mounting flexibility). Then guide users: Base for budget, Advanced for style, Pro for durability.
Now, structuring all this into markdown. Need to ensure the "With X, you can Y" structure. For example, "With our Italian flag design, you can express national pride on your Vespa."
Also, comparative hints like "20% lighter than steel" since aluminum is lighter.
Wait, the product attributes only mention material as aluminum, so maybe the Pro model has anodized aluminum for better resistance. Or different thicknesses.
I think that's a solid plan. Now, time to put it all together in the required format.
</think>