On this page · 2 sections
Proposed validation test
Observe the current review workflow
Not performed. These thresholds and effort are illustrative proposals, not empirically calibrated criteria. Review them before running a test.
Assumption at risk: Client-feedback delays create a costly recurring problem for the target architecture studios.
Proposed method: Speak with five owners of 3–15 person architecture studios in Germany. Ask about the last client-review cycle and, with permission, inspect redacted examples of the steps, tools and delays. Record behavior separately from interpretation.
Proposed support criterion: Illustrative proposed threshold: at least three of five owners can show a review cycle from the last 30 days with a client-feedback delay of at least one working day.
Proposed contradiction criterion: Illustrative proposed threshold: none of the five owners can show such a recent review cycle. One or two examples, missing records or inconsistent accounts leave the result inconclusive.
Estimated effort and resources: Planning estimate: five 30-minute conversations, plus recruitment and note review. Actual recruitment time and founder effort are unknown.
Limitations: This small selected sample cannot establish market prevalence, willingness to pay or product demand. A negative result does not prove there is no market. Use permission and redacted material; avoid unnecessary personal or client details.
Why this could change the decision: If recent delays cannot be observed, revisit the problem and buyer focus. If the proposed support criterion is met, investigate alternatives and test a defined paid offer separately. Neither result establishes funding readiness.
Record observed facts, a date and a positive, negative or inconclusive interpretation separately. Completing the conversations does not establish that the hypothesis is supported.
Return to the decision. Do not mark the hypothesis supported merely because the conversations were completed.