/nw-pdr-review-criteria

name: nw-pdr-review-criteria
description: Evidence quality validation and decision gate criteria for product discovery reviews
user-invocable: false
disable-model-invocation: true

Review Criteria -- Product Discovery Review

Evidence Quality Validation

Past Behavior Indicators (Good)

"Tell me about the last time..." | "When did you last..." | "What happened when..." | "Walk me through how you..." | "What did you try..." | "How much have you spent on..." Specific dates, dollar amounts, named tools, concrete examples, emotional frustration language

Future Intent Red Flags (Reject)

"Would you use/pay/like..." | "Do you think..." | "Imagine if..." | "What if we..." Flag and reject if >20% of evidence is future-intent.

Validation Thresholds

• Past behavior ratio: >80% (reject if fail, require re-interview)
• Specific examples: min 3 concrete per finding (warn if fail)
• Customer language: quotes in customer words, not paraphrased (warn if fail)

Sample Size Minimums

| Phase | Minimum | High Confidence | Notes | |-------|---------|-----------------|-------| | 1: Problem | 5 | 10 | Interviews required | | 2: Opportunity | 10 | 20 | Quantitative supplements, not replaces | | 3: Solution | 5 per iteration | 3 iterations max | Before decision | | 4: Viability | 5 | -- | Stakeholder review required |

Decision rule: min 5 actual, consistent signals supporting the decision. Block decisions on fewer; do not infer missing customers or discard negative evidence to satisfy a threshold.

Decision Gate Criteria

G1: Problem to Opportunity

Proceed: 5+ interviews, 5+ participants confirm pain, >60% confirmation across all Phase 1 interviews, willingness to pay supported by past spending or observed commitment | Pivot: differs from expected | Kill: <20% confirm Checks: verify both confirmation count and strict percentage from actual interview evidence, preserve sources and disconfirming observations, customer words, 3+ examples. 3/5 fails both requirements; 4/5 fails the count; 5/8 passes both count and percentage.

G2: Opportunity to Solution

Proceed: top 2-3 score >8 (0-20) | Pivot: new opportunities | Kill: all low-value Checks: OST complete with 5+, scores correct (Importance + Max(0, Importance - Satisfaction)), top >8/20

G3: Solution to Viability

Proceed: >80% task completion, usability validated | Pivot: needs refinement | Kill: fundamental blocks Checks: 5+ users/iteration, >80% completion, core flow usable, value validated

G4: Viability to Build

Proceed: 4 risks addressed, model validated | Pivot: adjustment needed | Kill: no viable model Checks: Lean Canvas complete, all risks green/yellow, stakeholder sign-off

Bias Types

Confirmation Bias (critical)

Signals: only positive quotes | skeptics not interviewed | disconfirming evidence dismissed | same questions for "right" answers Fix: include skeptics, actively seek disconfirming evidence

Selection Bias (high)

Signals: all existing customers | no churned/non-adopters | lacks diversity | single-enthusiast referral chain Fix: random/diverse selection, include skeptics and non-users

Discovery Theater (critical)

Signals: conclusion decided before research | findings match hypothesis perfectly | no surprises | idea-in = idea-shipped Fix: track idea evolution, expect 50%+ ideas to change

Sample Size Problem (high)

Signals: major decisions on 2-3 interviews | single quote as "validation" | pivot on one signal Fix: min 5 interviews per segment, 5+ signals for decisions

Anti-Patterns

Interview Anti-Patterns

| Pattern | Detection | Bad | Good | Severity | |---------|-----------|-----|------|----------| | Leading questions | Suggests desired answer | "Don't you think this would save time?" | "Tell me about the last time you tried to save time on this" | high | | Future-intent | Hypothetical behavior | "Would you use this feature?" | "What have you tried to solve this problem?" | critical | | Compliments as validation | Accepting "that's cool" | "They loved the idea!" | "They committed to follow-up and referral" | high | | Talking > listening | >30% interviewer talk | Long questions, short responses | Open questions, extended answers | medium |

Process Anti-Patterns

| Pattern | Detection | Severity | |---------|-----------|----------| | Skipping to solutions | Solution before problem validated | critical | | Demographic segmentation | Segments by demographics not jobs | medium | | Building before testing | Code before Phase 3 | critical |

Strategic Anti-Patterns

| Pattern | Detection | Severity | |---------|-----------|----------| | Premature pivoting | Direction change on 1-2 signals (need 5+) | high | | Solution love | Defending despite evidence, dismissing critics | high | | Sole source of truth | Only quant OR qual, not both | medium |

Pre-Approval Checklist

Evidence Quality

• [ ] Past behavior ratio >80% | [ ] No critical future-intent | [ ] Customer language preserved

Sample Sizes

• [ ] Phase 1: 5+ | [ ] Phase 2: 10+ | [ ] Phase 3: 5+/iteration | [ ] Phase 4: 5+ with stakeholders

Decision Gates

• [ ] All gates properly evaluated | [ ] Criteria documented with evidence | [ ] Decision justified

Bias Check

• [ ] No confirmation bias | [ ] No selection bias | [ ] No discovery theater | [ ] Sample size adequate

Anti-Patterns

• [ ] No critical interview anti-patterns | [ ] No critical process anti-patterns | [ ] No critical strategic anti-patterns

Approval Decision

First matching outcome wins:

• **Rejected**: supplied evidence fails a criterion, or any critical/high issue. Structured rejection with remediation. Blocks handoff.
• **Indeterminate**: nothing fails on supplied evidence, but a criterion's needed evidence is absent or unreadable. Name the missing evidence and its supplier. Blocks handoff; never approval.
• **Conditionally approved**: every criterion judged, minor issues only (no critical/high). Approval with recommendation