At what price would this be so expensive you wouldn't consider it?
At what price would you consider it expensive, but still consider buying?
At what price would you consider it a bargain?
At what price would it be so cheap you'd question the quality?
Optimal Price
Where "too expensive" and "too cheap" curves intersect
Validation Gate
:
Revenue model defined (subscription, usage, freemium, etc.)
LTV and CAC estimated
LTV:CAC ≥ 3:1 achievable
Pricing tested with real users
Key business risks identified
Phase 5: MVP Definition
Goal
Define minimum set of features needed to validate core value proposition
MVP Scope Framework
:
Must-Have (Core Value Proposition)
:
Features that deliver the primary benefit
Without these, the product doesn't solve the problem
Example: For Uber, "request ride" and "track driver"
Should-Have (Important but not Critical)
:
Enhance experience but aren't core to problem
Add in V1.1 or V1.2
Example: For Uber, "driver ratings" and "fare estimates"
Nice-to-Have (Delight Features)
:
Add polish but don't solve core problem
Postpone indefinitely
Example: For Uber, "music preferences" and "pet-friendly rides"
MVP = Must-Haves ONLY. Scope to 4-8 weeks.
Success Metrics
:
Activation rate: % of signups who complete core action
Retention (Week 1): % who return after first use
Referral: % who recommend to others
Revenue: % who convert to paid (if monetized)
Validation Gate
:
Must-have features defined (core value only)
Should-have and nice-to-have deferred
MVP scoped to 4-8 weeks
Success metrics defined and measurable
Launch and feedback strategy planned
Key Principles
1. Test the Riskiest Assumptions First
Focus on what could kill the product, not what's easy to test
2. Fail Fast, Fail Cheap
Invalidate bad ideas before they consume significant resources
3. Evidence Over Intuition
Your opinion is not validation. Real user behavior is.
4. Problem Before Solution
Fall in love with the problem, not your solution
5. MVP is Not V1
MVP should test assumptions, not delight customers
6. Pivots Are Normal
Most successful products pivot based on validation findings
Standard Output Format
discovery_validation_summary
:
problem_validation
:
hypothesis
:
''
interviews_conducted
:
<number
>
severity
:
frequency
:
''
impact
:
''
urgency
:
''
validation_status
:
''
solution_validation
:
concepts_tested
:
<number
>
user_feedback
:
[
''
]
must_have_features
:
[
''
]
validation_status
:
''
market_validation
:
tam
:
'$'
sam
:
'$'
som
:
'$'
growth_rate
:
''
competitive_differentiation
:
''
business_model
:
revenue_model
:
''
estimated_ltv
:
'$'
estimated_cac
:
'$'
ltv_cac_ratio
:
''
pricing
:
'$ per '
mvp_definition
:
must_have_features
:
[
''
,
''
]
success_metrics
:
-
metric
:
''
target
:
''
-
metric
:
''
target
:
''
estimated_timeline
:
''
recommendation
:
''
risks
:
[
''
]
Common Pitfalls
❌
Skipping problem validation
→ Build solutions to non-problems
❌
Falling in love with your solution
→ Ignore evidence it doesn't work
❌
Talking to the wrong people
→ Friends/family say what you want to hear
❌
Overbuilding the MVP
→ 6-month build for an experiment
❌
Vanity metrics
→ Track page views instead of paying customers
❌
Ignoring unit economics
→ Acquire customers at a loss forever
Approval Gate
Before proceeding to full design and development:
Problem validated with at least 10 customer interviews
Solution concept tested with low-fidelity prototypes
Market sized and confirmed viable (SOM ≥ $1M)
Unit economics demonstrate path to profitability (LTV:CAC ≥ 3:1)
MVP scope defined and approved by stakeholders
Success metrics defined with measurement plan
Rationale
Investing in development without validation is gambling. This gate ensures product-market fit is achievable before significant resource commitment.
Related Resources