Problem Validating
Validate and prioritize problems by severity, frequency, and willingness to pay.
Canvas Files
- •Reads: 04.segments.md (primary segment for problem context)
- •Reads: 01.context.md (beliefs about problems to validate)
- •Writes: 05.problem.md
Prerequisites
Before validating problems:
- •
strategy/canvas/04.segments.mdmust exist with primary segment defined
If missing:
"Problem validation requires customer segments from 04.segments.md. Problems must be anchored to specific segments — 'everyone has this problem' is not validatable. Run fnd.r-segmenting-customers skill or fnd-researcher agent first."
Process
Step 1: Load Context
Read from canvas:
- •Primary segment from 04.segments.md
- •Segment pain signals from 04.segments.md
- •Beliefs about problems from 01.context.md (if exists)
Step 2: List Problem Hypotheses
For the primary segment, identify candidate problems:
- •What pain points emerged from research?
- •What jobs-to-be-done are underserved?
- •What workarounds exist (signals real pain)?
- •What do they complain about?
Aim for 5-7 candidate problems to evaluate.
Step 3: Score Each Problem
Frequency (1-5):
| Score | Frequency | Example |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Multiple times daily | Email overload |
| 4 | Daily | Expense reporting |
| 3 | Weekly | Team coordination |
| 2 | Monthly | Quarterly planning |
| 1 | Rarely | Annual audit |
Intensity (1-5):
| Score | Intensity | Signal |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Business stops | Critical system down |
| 4 | Significant loss | Revenue/time impact |
| 3 | Notable pain | Frustration, inefficiency |
| 2 | Mild annoyance | Workaround exists |
| 1 | Trivial | Nice to fix |
Willingness to Pay (1-5):
| Score | WTP Signal | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Actively buying | Budget allocated, RFPs out |
| 4 | Would pay | Direct P&L impact, clear ROI |
| 3 | Might pay | Indirect benefit, needs business case |
| 2 | Reluctant | Nice-to-have, low priority |
| 1 | Won't pay | No budget, no urgency |
Calculate Severity:
Severity Score = Frequency × Intensity × WTP (max 125)
Step 4: Gather Evidence
For each problem, document evidence:
Strong Evidence (prioritize):
- •Customer interview quotes
- •Job postings for roles addressing this problem
- •Competitor funding rounds (market validation)
- •Industry reports citing this problem
Moderate Evidence:
- •Survey responses (n>30)
- •Review site complaints
- •Forum discussions
- •Search volume trends
Weak Evidence (flag uncertainty):
- •Founder intuition
- •Secondary research only
- •Analogies from other markets
Step 5: Identify Current Solutions
For each problem, document:
- •Existing alternatives: What do they use now?
- •Workarounds: Manual processes, spreadsheets
- •Shortcomings: Why current solutions fail
This informs differentiation opportunity.
Step 6: Apply JTBD Frame
Convert top problems to Jobs-to-be-Done:
When [situation/trigger], I want to [motivation/action], So I can [expected outcome].
JTBD focuses on outcome, not solution — keeps problem definition clean.
Step 7: Rank and Select
Rank by Severity Score. Select:
- •Top 3 for solution design (05.problem.md)
- •#4-5 as expansion opportunities
Step 8: Write Output
Write to strategy/canvas/05.problem.md using output format below.
Output Format
# 05. Problems ## Primary Segment [From 04.segments — who has these problems] ## Problem Stack (Ranked by Severity) ### Problem 1: [Name] **JTBD:** When [situation], I want to [action], so I can [outcome]. **Severity Score:** [X]/125 | Dimension | Score | Evidence | |-----------|-------|----------| | Frequency | [1-5] | [How often, evidence] | | Intensity | [1-5] | [How painful, evidence] | | WTP | [1-5] | [Budget signals, evidence] | **Current Solutions:** | Alternative | How Used | Why Inadequate | |-------------|----------|----------------| | [Alt 1] | [Usage] | [Limitation] | | [Alt 2] | [Usage] | [Limitation] | **Root Cause:** [Why this problem exists] **Cost of Problem:** $[X]/[period] — [calculation basis] --- ### Problem 2: [Name] [Same structure] --- ### Problem 3: [Name] [Same structure] --- ## Problem Validation Status | Problem | Evidence Type | Confidence | Next Step | |---------|---------------|------------|-----------| | P1: [Name] | [Interview/Survey/Research] | High/Med/Low | [Action] | | P2: [Name] | [Type] | [Level] | [Action] | | P3: [Name] | [Type] | [Level] | [Action] | ## Problems NOT Prioritized | Problem | Severity | Why Deprioritized | |---------|----------|-------------------| | [P4] | [Score] | [Reason] | | [P5] | [Score] | [Reason] |
Quality Criteria
Before finalizing, verify:
- • Exactly 3 problems in final ranking
- • Each has all three scores with evidence
- • Evidence cited (not just scores)
- • Current alternatives documented
- • JTBD statement for each
- • Problems anchored to specific segment
- • Cost of problem quantified where possible
Interview Questions
For customer discovery:
| Question | Purpose |
|---|---|
| "When did you last experience [problem]?" | Validates frequency |
| "Walk me through what happened" | Reveals intensity, context |
| "What did you do about it?" | Exposes current solutions |
| "What did this cost you?" | Quantifies impact |
| "If you could wave a magic wand..." | Reveals desired outcome |
Red Flags (Problem May Be Weak)
| Signal | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| "It would be nice if..." | Low intensity |
| Can't recall last occurrence | Low frequency |
| No workaround exists | May not care enough |
| Won't quantify cost | Not actually painful |
| "We've always done it this way" | Accepted status quo |
Green Flags (Problem Is Real)
| Signal | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Emotional response | High intensity |
| Specific recent example | High frequency |
| Built internal tool | High WTP |
| Quantifies cost readily | Tracked the pain |
| "I would pay for..." | Validated WTP |
Boundaries
- •Does NOT validate solution fit (separate concern)
- •Does NOT assess market size for problem (see fnd.r-sizing-markets)
- •Does NOT interview customers (provides framework for interviews)
- •Problem scores are hypotheses until validated with customers
- •Requires segment context — generic problems are not actionable
- •Does NOT prioritize based on ease of solution (that's Solution Design)
- •Evidence quality matters — flag low-confidence scores