Foundation Sprint Founding Hypothesis
Quick facts
Classification: tool | Version: 0.1.0 | Category: problem-framing | License: Apache-2.0
Try it: /tool-foundation-sprint-founding-hypothesis "Your context here"
Day 2 end of a Foundation Sprint. The team compresses the full sprint output into a single canonical sentence plus a testable scorecard. This is the artifact the sprint exists to produce; everything before this skill was preparation. Without a ratifiable Founding Hypothesis, the sprint failed.
Family contract: docs/reference/skill-families/foundation-sprint-skills-contract.md. This skill is a member of foundation-sprint-skills.
When to Use
- Day 2 end of a Foundation Sprint.
- Magic Lenses is signed; top bet and backup are named.
- The team has 30-45 minutes left in Day 2 and the energy to write the sentence carefully.
When NOT to Use
- Magic Lenses did not produce a clear top bet. Return to Magic Lenses; the Founding Hypothesis cannot stabilize on an unstable top bet.
- The team wants to “polish the hypothesis later.” The hypothesis must be ratified by end of Day 2 or the sprint output is incomplete. Polishing later means re-litigating; that defeats the sprint’s purpose.
- The team wants to ratify a vague hypothesis to “ship the sprint.” A vague hypothesis is worse than no hypothesis; it gives false confidence and burns trust when validation fails.
How to Use
Use the /tool-foundation-sprint-founding-hypothesis slash command:
/tool-foundation-sprint-founding-hypothesis "Your context here"Or reference the skill file directly: skills/tool-foundation-sprint-founding-hypothesis/SKILL.md
Output Template
Foundation Sprint Founding Hypothesis: [Initiative name] (Day 2 End)
Founding Hypothesis
If we help [target customer] solve [important problem] with [approach], they will choose it over [competitors or alternatives] because our solution is [differentiators].
Slot derivation:
- Target customer: [from Basics target customer statement]
- Important problem: [from Basics important problem statement]
- Approach: [from Magic Lenses top bet]
- Alternatives: [from Basics competitor map; must include “do nothing” if named there]
- Differentiators: [from Differentiation chosen two]
Assumption Scorecard
[5-7 assumptions recommended; 3-10 accepted. Highest-risk assumption identified at bottom.]
| # | Assumption | Why it matters | Current confidence | Best next test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | [Assumption text] | [What breaks if wrong] | [High / Med-high / Med / Med-low / Low] | [Specific test that changes confidence] |
| A2 | [Assumption] | [Why matters] | [Confidence] | [Test] |
| A3 | [Assumption] | [Why matters] | [Confidence] | [Test] |
| A4 | [Assumption] | [Why matters] | [Confidence] | [Test] |
| A5 | [Assumption] | [Why matters] | [Confidence] | [Test] |
| A6 | (Optional) | |||
| A7 | (Optional) |
Highest-risk assumption: [Assumption number]. [One sentence naming why this is the riskiest.]
Why We Believe This
[3-5 bulleted points naming the evidence base for the hypothesis.]
- [Evidence point]. [Brief expansion citing the prior research, interviews, or domain knowledge that supports the hypothesis.]
- [Evidence point].
- [Evidence point].
What Could Prove Us Wrong
[3-5 bulleted points naming risks. This section is the team’s calibration check. If the team cannot name what would invalidate the hypothesis, the hypothesis is being held with overconfidence.]
- [Risk]. [What invalidation looks like; what behavior or evidence would change the team’s belief.]
- [Risk].
- [Risk].
Recommended Next Validation Step
Next step: [Design Sprint / customer research / landing page experiment / concierge MVP / etc.]
What it tests: [Which assumption(s) from the scorecard does this attack first?]
Owner: [Name]
Timeline: [When does this start; when does it produce signal]
Decision the next step unlocks: [Build, refine, pivot, stop. What decision is the team making based on the next step’s output?]
Decider Checkpoint
Decider sign-off required to close the Foundation Sprint.
- Decider ratifies the Founding Hypothesis sentence verbatim.
- Decider confirms the assumption scorecard and the highest-risk assumption identification.
- Decider commits to the recommended next validation step with named owner and timeline.
- Decider acknowledges the backup plan (from Magic Lenses) is real, not theoretical.
- Decider acknowledges the team will not re-litigate the strategic direction without explicit invalidation evidence from the next test.
Signed: [Decider name, role], [ISO date and local time].
Foundation Sprint closed.
Example Output
Foundation Sprint Founding Hypothesis: Brainshelf (Day 2 End)
Foundation Sprint Founding Hypothesis: Brainshelf (Day 2 End)
The Brainshelf team’s Day 2 end output. The Foundation Sprint closes here.
Founding Hypothesis
If we help people who read 25 or more books a year and treat their personal library as memory rather than identity solve “I can’t remember what I’ve read or what I want to read next” with sub-3-second camera-first capture into a private library, they will choose it over Goodreads, StoryGraph, paper journals, and doing nothing because our solution is the fastest way to capture a book and the most useful way to recall what they have read.
Slot derivation:
- Target customer: 25+/year readers, books-as-memory framing (from Basics)
- Important problem: forgetting what they have read / want to read (from Basics)
- Approach: sub-3-second camera-first capture into a private library (Yellow / Approach A from Magic Lenses)
- Alternatives: Goodreads, StoryGraph, paper journals, doing nothing (from Basics competitor map)
- Differentiators: fastest capture + most useful recall (from Differentiation)
Assumption Scorecard
| # | Assumption | Why it matters | Current confidence | Best next test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | 25+/year readers are switchable from “do nothing” with sub-3-second capture | If false, no capture-speed product can win this segment | Medium | Design Sprint Friday testing (5 customers) |
| A2 | Camera-OCR + cover-recognition can achieve sub-3-second resolution at acceptable accuracy | If false, the differentiation collapses | Medium-high | Thursday prototype build with real OCR API |
| A3 | ”Personal recall” is a strong-enough draw without social features | If false, customers churn after initial novelty | Medium | Test recall flow with prototype; post-test interview |
| A4 | Target customer can be reached through organic channels (Riley’s network, content) | If false, CAC pressure forces premature monetization | High | Founder-led growth test post-DS |
| A5 | Paid sync + cross-device monetization model resonates | If false, business model unclear | Medium | Concept-pricing question in Friday script |
| A6 | ”Did I already read this?” is felt strongly enough to drive recall use cases | If false, the personal recall pillar is weaker than thought | High | Friday context-question on recall scenarios |
Highest-risk assumption: A1. The product depends on it more than any other; the Design Sprint exists to test it.
Why We Believe This
- 22 customer interviews surfaced the same two pains repeatedly: forgetting books and friction with current tools. The Founding Hypothesis directly addresses both.
- Riley’s network is a credible distribution channel for the target segment; warm intros tested in the readiness assessment.
- The team’s existing capabilities (Alex on fast-capture UX, Sam on mobile and offline) match the chosen differentiators with evidence.
- The “do nothing” baseline is high for this segment, meaning a 10x-better tool can win without displacing an entrenched competitor.
- The differentiation is observable to customers (speed, recall) rather than internal-team metrics (architectural elegance).
What Could Prove Us Wrong
- Customers nod but don’t capture. “Yes, this looks fast” in interviews but no usage in real life within 7-day follow-up.
- OCR accuracy is below acceptable. Customers see 1-in-5 mis-resolutions and lose trust.
- Personal recall is a feature, not a habit. Customers capture once and never come back to recall.
- Camera-first is awkward in real contexts. People feel weird scanning books at home or in public.
- Reading 25+/year segment is too small. TAM-too-narrow for a venture-scale company; the early signal might be strong but the segment cannot grow into a business.
Recommended Next Validation Step
Next step: Design Sprint week of 2026-05-26.
What it tests: A1 (switchable from “do nothing”) first; A2 (OCR accuracy) via the Thursday prototype build; A3 (personal recall draw) via the Friday recall flow test; A5 (pricing) via the Friday Five-Act Interview Act 5 debrief.
Owner: Jamie (founder, PM); Riley owns customer recruiting.
Timeline: Sprint begins Monday 2026-05-26; Friday testing 2026-05-30; Decider call by 16:30 Friday; 7-day instrumented follow-up through 2026-06-06.
Decision the next step unlocks: Build (6-week MVP cycle starting June 2), iterate (refine prototype + re-sprint), pivot to backup (Red Bookstore Mode), or stop.
Decider Checkpoint
Decider sign-off required to close the Foundation Sprint.
- Jamie ratifies the Founding Hypothesis sentence verbatim.
- Jamie confirms the 6-row assumption scorecard.
- Jamie commits to running a Design Sprint week of 2026-05-26 as the next test.
- Jamie acknowledges the backup plan (Red Bookstore Mode) is real, not theoretical.
- Jamie acknowledges the team will not re-litigate the social-reader direction without explicit invalidation evidence from the Design Sprint.
Signed: Jamie (founder, PM), 2026-05-14 16:55 PT.
Foundation Sprint closed.