Product Strategy

Purpose

Produce an elite-tier strategic product roadmap that articulates a falsifiable vision, sizes and sequences strategic bets with explicit confidence levels, surfaces tensions between competing priorities, names what you are NOT doing and what that costs, allocates resources against capacity constraints, and sets quarterly gates with kill criteria. The output is a Strategy Document — not a feature backlog, not a Gantt chart, but a decision architecture that tells a team what to build, in what order, why, and what to stop doing.

When to Use / When NOT to Use

Use this skill when:

• Building or revising a product roadmap for a quarter, half, or year
• Articulating product vision and translating it to executable strategy
• Running annual or quarterly planning exercises
• Making portfolio allocation decisions across multiple investment areas
• A leadership review requires a strategy document with clear bets and sequencing rationale
• You need to explicitly communicate what you are NOT doing and why

Do NOT use this skill when:

• You need competitive intelligence to inform the strategy (use Competitive Market Analysis skill first — its output feeds this skill)
• You need to write a specification for a specific feature (use Specification Writing skill — this skill's output feeds that one)
• You need to define metrics for measuring success of shipped features (use Metric Design & Experimentation skill)
• You need to understand a problem before deciding what to build (use Problem Framing skill — that comes upstream)
• You need a project plan with task-level assignments and sprint breakdowns (this is strategy, not project management)

Anti-inputs (what this skill does NOT handle):

• Feature specifications or PRDs (downstream: Specification Writing skill)
• Sprint planning or task decomposition (execution layer, not strategy layer)
• Competitive analysis (upstream: Competitive Market Analysis skill)
• User research synthesis (upstream: Discovery Research skill)
• OKR writing (adjacent but distinct — this skill produces the strategy that OKRs measure)

Context Gate (Step -1: Is a Strategy Document the Right Artifact?)

Before applying any frameworks, verify that a strategy document is what the situation actually requires. The most common waste is building a rigorous strategy when the real need is simpler — or more fundamental.

Context Gate outcome: If 2+ checks fail, this skill will produce a less useful artifact. Note the gaps in the output header and proceed with caveats, or pause to gather upstream inputs.

Reader Navigation

How to Read This Document

Notation Key

Format Rules (Read First)

These rules govern every output produced by this codex. They are quality enforcement mechanisms, not style preferences.

1. Take positions. Never hedge with weasel words. "Likely," "may," "could," and "seems" are banned from strategic conclusions. Flag uncertainty with explicit confidence levels: H (>70% confident), M (40-70%), L (<40%). Example: "This bet will capture the underserved mid-market segment within 3 quarters (M)" — not "This bet may help us reach new customers."

2. Every strategic bet carries a hypothesis, confidence level, and investment size. A bet without a hypothesis is a wish. A bet without a confidence level is a assertion. A bet without an investment size is a fantasy.

3. The O→I→R→C→W cascade applies to ALL strategic recommendations, not just final sections. Observation [evidence tier] → Implication [mechanism] → Response [specific action] → Confidence [H/M/L + assumption] → Watch Indicator [observable signal].

4. Begin with Framework Selection (Step 0) before applying any framework. Identify the strategy question type; select 3-4 load-bearing frameworks; note which to skip.

5. Contradictions between bets or frameworks are signal, not noise. When two strategic bets pull in different directions, or when sequencing logic conflicts, surface the tension explicitly and state the resolution rationale.

6. Flag time-sensitive claims. Any claim based on data older than 6 months must carry [POTENTIALLY STALE — verify before presenting].

7. Flag thin-evidence conclusions. If a key strategic bet rests only on Tier 4-6 evidence, prepend it with [EVIDENCE-LIMITED: validate with Tier 1-2 before committing resources].

8. Every sequencing decision states the counterfactual. "We do A before B because..." must include "If we did B first, [specific consequence]." Sequencing without counterfactuals is assertion, not reasoning.

9. Framework references include one-line contextual explanations. First reference to any framework includes a parenthetical explaining why it matters for this strategy decision. The strategy document must be navigable by non-creators.

Output Template (Mandatory Document Skeleton)

Every Strategy Document MUST follow this exact structure. Copy this skeleton and fill it in. Do not reorder sections, skip sections, or invent new top-level sections.

# Strategy Document: [Product/Area — e.g., "M365 Copilot Mobile — FY27 H1"]

> **Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD] | **Time horizon:** [quarterly/half/annual/multi-year] | **Confidence band:** [Overall H/M/L] | **Next review:** [Date]

---

## Executive Summary

[≤300 words. Zero jargon. A VP reads only this and makes a resource allocation decision. Final sentence = the recommended strategic direction in bold. Written LAST, appears FIRST.]

---

## Step 0: Framework Selection

| Strategy question type | Primary frameworks (apply in full) | Supporting frameworks (scan only) | Skipped (why) |
|---|---|---|---|
| [e.g., "Annual roadmap for established product"] | [e.g., Vision-to-Roadmap Cascade, Strategic Bet-Sizing, Option-Value Sequencing] | [e.g., Resource Allocation, Roadmap Communication] | [e.g., "N/A — all frameworks load-bearing for annual planning"] |

---

## 1. Vision Statement

[1-2 sentences. Aspirational but falsifiable. Not "be the best" but "become the default X for Y in Z timeframe."]

**Falsification test:** [What observable outcome in what timeframe would prove this vision wrong?]

---

## 2. Strategy Pillars

| # | Pillar | Strategic intent | Maps to vision how |
|---|--------|-----------------|-------------------|
| P1 | [Theme name — not a feature, not an initiative] | [What this pillar achieves strategically] | [How it advances the vision] |
| P2 | | | |
| P3 | | | |

---

## 3. Strategic Bets

### Bet 1: [Name]
- **Pillar:** [Which pillar this serves]
- **Category:** Core / Adjacent / Transformational
- **Hypothesis:** If we [specific investment], then [measurable outcome] because [mechanism]
- **Confidence:** [H/M/L] — based on [evidence summary with tier]
- **Investment:** [X engineers, Y designers, Z months] = [% of total capacity]
- **Success criteria:** [Specific, measurable, time-bound]
- **Kill criteria:** [What observable outcome at what checkpoint tells us to stop]
- **Key assumption:** [The one thing that must be true for this bet to pay off]

### Bet 2: [Name]
[Same structure]

### Bet 3: [Name]
[Same structure]

**Portfolio Balance Check:**

| Category | Count | % of investment | Target range | Assessment |
|----------|:-----:|:---------------:|:------------:|:----------:|
| Core | | | 50-70% | |
| Adjacent | | | 20-30% | |
| Transformational | | | 5-15% | |

---

## 4. Sequencing Rationale

| Sequence | Bet | Rationale type | Counterfactual |
|:--------:|-----|---------------|----------------|
| 1st | [Bet name] | [Dependency / Information / Option-value / Risk / Revenue] | If we did [other bet] first, [specific consequence] |
| 2nd | | | |
| 3rd | | | |

**Critical path:** [Which bet, if delayed, delays everything else]

**Information gates:** [Which bets reveal information that changes other bets' value]

---

## 5. Strategic Tensions

| Tension | Bet A | Bet B | Type | Resolution | What we lose |
|---------|-------|-------|------|------------|--------------|
| [Name] | [Bet] | [Bet] | Resource / Strategic / Timing | [How resolved + rationale] | [Cost of this resolution] |

**Strategic debt created:** [What speed/quality/scope tradeoff creates debt that must be repaid, and when]

---

## 6. What We Are NOT Doing

| # | Item | Category | Why not | What we lose | Reconsider if |
|---|------|----------|---------|-------------|---------------|
| 1 | [Specific initiative/feature/market] | Deferred / Declined / Deprecated | [Reasoning] | [Opportunity cost — not zero] | [Observable condition] |
| 2 | | | | | |
| 3 | | | | | |

**Stakeholder communication:** [How to explain the NOT-doing decisions to affected teams/customers without demoralizing or angering]

---

## 7. Resource Plan

**Capacity model:**

| Team/Function | Total headcount | Planned (70%) | Reactive (20%) | Exploration (10%) | Override? |
|--------------|:---------------:|:-------------:|:---------------:|:-----------------:|:---------:|
| Engineering | | | | | |
| Design | | | | | |
| PM | | | | | |

**Per-bet allocation:**

| Bet | Eng | Design | PM | Duration | Monthly burn | Dependencies on other teams |
|-----|:---:|:------:|:--:|:--------:|:------------:|:-------------------------:|
| [Bet 1] | | | | | | |
| [Bet 2] | | | | | | |

**Hiring implications:** [Which bets require hiring? Lead time? What happens if hiring is delayed?]

**Capacity check:** [Does the sum of all allocations exceed 70% planned capacity? If yes, something must be cut or deferred.]

---

## 8. Quarterly Gates

| Quarter | Primary bet focus | Gate criteria (pass/fail) | Adaptation triggers | Kill criteria |
|---------|------------------|--------------------------|--------------------|--------------|
| Q1 | [Bet name] | [Specific, measurable criteria] | [What signal tells us to adjust scope/direction] | [What tells us to stop entirely] |
| Q2 | | | | |
| Q3 | | | | |
| Q4 | | | | |

**Replanning protocol:** [How and when the strategy gets revised — monthly check-ins, quarterly deep-dives, trigger-based emergency reviews]

---

## 9. Roadmap Communication Views

| Audience | View | Emphasis | Omit |
|----------|------|----------|------|
| Executive | Bets + business outcomes + confidence | Investment sizing, portfolio balance | Technical details, sprint-level scope |
| Engineering | Dependencies + technical architecture + sequencing | Build sequence, integration points | Business rationale beyond what's needed for decisions |
| Design | User outcomes per bet + experience evolution | Success criteria from user perspective | Resource math, financial projections |
| Sales/GTM | Customer-facing capabilities + competitive positioning | Timeline for customer-visible features | Internal bets, platform investments |

---

## 10. Strategic Recommendations (O→I→R→C→W Cascade)

**Recommendation 1: [Title]**
- **Observation** [TX]: [What we see]
- **Implication**: [Why it matters — the mechanism]
- **Response**: [Specific action + owner + timeline]
- **Confidence**: [H/M/L] — assumes [key assumption]
- **Watch**: [Observable signal]; if [threshold], re-assess

**Recommendation 2: [Title]**
[Same structure]

**Recommendation 3: [Title]**
[Same structure]

---

## Assumption Registry

| # | Assumption | Bets it underpins | Confidence | Evidence | What would invalidate this |
|---|-----------|-------------------|:----------:|----------|----------------------------|
| 1 | | | H/M/L | (TX) | |
| 2 | | | H/M/L | (TX) | |
| 3 | | | H/M/L | (TX) | |

---

## Adversarial Self-Critique

**Weakness 1: [Title]**
[What assumption is being made? What evidence would disprove it? Scenario where this strategy is catastrophically wrong.]

**Weakness 2: [Title]**
[Same depth]

**Weakness 3: [Title]**
[Same depth]

---

## Revision Triggers

| Trigger | What to re-assess | Timeline |
|---------|-------------------|----------|
| [Observable event] | [Which bets/sections break] | [When to check] |

---

## Sources

[All sources cited in the analysis, with evidence tier and date.]

Rules for using this template:

1. Do not skip sections. If a section isn't applicable, write "Skipped — [reason]" and move on.
2. Every strategic bet must have a hypothesis, confidence level, AND investment size — no exceptions.
3. Section headers are conclusions, not labels. Replace generic headers (e.g., "Q2 Gate") with insight headers (e.g., "Q2: Kill or Double Down on Enterprise Expansion") after completing the section.
4. The Executive Summary is written last but appears first. Do not write it until all sections are complete.
5. The NOT-Doing section must contain ≥3 items. An empty NOT-Doing section means no hard decisions were made.

Domain Frameworks

This section IS the knowledge weapon. Each framework is encoded with its scoring rubrics, decision tables, and application methodology — not merely referenced. A PM using this skill produces a strategy document that requires these frameworks; without them, the output degrades to a feature backlog with dates.

Framework 1: Vision-to-Roadmap Cascade

The structural bridge from aspiration to execution. Most strategies fail at one of two gaps: (1) vision that never translates to bets, or (2) bets that don't trace back to a coherent vision. The cascade makes both gaps impossible to hide.

The Five Levels:

Vision Quality Rubric:

Decision Table — Vision Clarity x Execution Certainty:

Framework 2: Strategic Bet-Sizing

Making explicit what you're betting on — the anatomy of a strategic investment with enough rigor that a board member could evaluate the portfolio.

Bet Anatomy (every bet must have all 6 components):

Bet Categories — The Three Horizons of Investment:

Portfolio Balance Scoring Rubric:

Bet Scoring Matrix — Strategic Importance x Confidence:

Framework 3: Option-Value Sequencing

The most underused concept in product strategy: the order in which you do things changes the value of everything you do. This framework makes sequencing a strategic decision, not a priority-ranking exercise.

Five Sequencing Logics:

Sequencing Decision Table:

The Counterfactual Test (mandatory for every sequence decision):

For every "A before B" decision, state:

"If we did B first instead of A, the consequence would be [specific outcome]. We accept this risk / We cannot accept this risk because [reason]."

A sequence without counterfactuals is not a decision — it's a gut feeling with a timeline attached.

Option-Value Scoring:

Sequence high option-value bets before low option-value bets when other factors are roughly equal. The bet that preserves the most strategic flexibility should come first.

Framework 4: Strategic Tension Surfacing

The uncomfortable truth about strategy: a roadmap where everything coexists peacefully is a sign that hard decisions were avoided, not that hard decisions were unnecessary. This framework forces tensions into the open.

Tension Identification Protocol:

Tension Types and Resolution Patterns:

Strategic Debt — The Hidden Cost of Tension Resolution:

Every tension resolution creates strategic debt. Name it.

Anti-pattern detection:

Framework 5: The NOT-Doing Section

The most important section of any strategy document. Every roadmap is an implicit claim about what's NOT worth doing — this framework makes that claim explicit.

NOT-Doing Taxonomy:

Per-Item Requirements (every NOT-Doing item must have all 5):

Opportunity Cost Assessment:

Decision Table — When to Defer vs. Decline vs. Deprecate:

Anti-pattern: The Empty NOT-Doing Section

If the NOT-Doing section contains <3 items, one of three things is true:

1. The team hasn't received enough requests/ideas to say no to (unlikely — probe harder)
2. The roadmap claims to do everything (resource fantasy)
3. The PM avoided the hard decisions and is implicitly deprioritizing by not resourcing, which is worse — it creates false expectations without the honest communication

Framework 6: Resource Allocation & Capacity Planning

The framework that makes strategy real — or exposes it as fantasy. Every strategic bet must be backed by specific people, time, and budget. A bet without resources is a wish.

The Capacity Model:

Per-Bet Resource Sizing:

Hiring Lead Time Table:

Key insight: If a bet requires a new hire and the bet starts in Q1, the hire must be approved and started no later than the prior Q3. A roadmap that says "hire in Q1, ship in Q2" is a fiction.

Capacity Integrity Check:

| Check | Pass | Fail

…(truncated)