Timing Analysis

Timing Analysis — Why Now?

You can build at any time, but you can't create the wave. This skill forces founders to answer the hardest question investors and markets ask: "Why now and not two years ago or two years from now?" — with evidence, not narrative.

Philosophy

Timing is the silent killer. More ideas die from bad timing than bad execution. Too early and you educate the market on someone else's dime. Too late and you fight entrenched incumbents for scraps. The sweet spot is narrow: the wave is forming, buyers are shifting, incumbents are distracted, and you can reach first revenue before the window closes.

Read .claude/skills/_shared/philosophy.md for the full bottleneck shift and bootstrapper framework. For timing analysis specifically:

AI-native timing reality. When code is cheap, build timing is irrelevant — you can ship in a weekend. What matters is market timing. Is the demand forming now? Are buyers changing behavior now? Is the regulatory tailwind blowing now? The 10x forces that reshape industries don't care about your sprint velocity. They care about whether you're in the water when the wave breaks.

The bootstrapper timing paradox. Funded startups can afford to be early — they burn capital to educate markets and wait for adoption. Bootstrappers can't. You need a market where buyers are already moving, pain is already acute, and the first customer is reachable within months, not years. Being early with someone else's money is a strategy. Being early with your own money is a death sentence.

AI-native reality check — timing traps:

• "AI is changing everything" — true, but which specific behavior is changing, for whom, and are they spending money on the change yet?
• "The market is huge and growing" — growth rate is not timing. A market can grow 20% annually and still be too early or too late for your entry
• "Regulation is coming" — proposed regulation is speculation. Enacted regulation is a catalyst. Know the difference.
• "Incumbents are slow" — slow to what? If they're slow to adopt AI but fast to acquire competitors, the window is narrower than you think

What IS evidence of good timing:

• Buyer behavior visibly changing (new tools adopted, old workflows abandoned, budget shifting)
• Regulatory deadlines creating forced action (compliance dates, reporting requirements)
• Incumbent distraction (M&A activity, leadership changes, platform migrations, layoffs)
• Technology cost/capability crossing a threshold (what was impossible or expensive is now cheap)
• Search volume and community activity trending up for the problem domain
• Adjacent markets already disrupted (the wave is approaching your sector)

Reference Books

Check references/INDEX.md for relevant frameworks. Key topics for timing analysis: strategic inflection points and 10x forces, technology adoption lifecycle and chasm dynamics, disruptive innovation and performance trajectories, last mover advantage and definite optimism, industry evolution under disruption, the bottleneck shift framework.

Research-First Protocol

Research autonomously before outputting anything. See _shared/philosophy.md for the full protocol. Key searches:

• "[industry/market] trends 2025 2026" / "[industry] disruption" / "[industry] transformation"
• "[industry] regulation new" / "[industry] compliance deadline" / "[industry] policy change"
• "[category] adoption rate" / "[category] growth rate" / "[category] Google Trends"
• "[incumbent competitor] layoffs" / "[incumbent] acquisition" / "[incumbent] pivot" / "[incumbent] leadership change"
• "[technology] cost decline" / "[technology] adoption curve" / "[technology] mainstream"
• "[buyer role] changing tools" / "[buyer role] switching from" / "[buyer role] new workflow"
• "[market] new entrants" / "[market] startup launches" / "[market] competition increasing"
• If competitor-analysis has already been run, pull incumbent vulnerability and market entry rate data from it instead of re-researching
• If market-size has already been run, pull demand signals and market growth data from it
• If problem-analysis has already been run, pull urgency triggers and buyer behavior evidence from it

Sub-Skill Mode

See _shared/philosophy.md Sub-Skill Mode Protocol.

End-to-End Flow

STEP 0 — CONTEXT GATHERING

Extract from the user's input:

• The business idea or product (what it does, who it's for)
• The market or industry being entered
• Current stage (idea, MVP, live product with customers)
• The founder's timing thesis (their answer to "why now?" — even if unstated)
• Any known market shifts, regulatory changes, or technology inflections

If the idea description is too vague to assess timing, ask ONE clarifying question. Otherwise, proceed to research.

STEP 1 — TIMING RESEARCH

Research the timing forces acting on this specific market. Not generic trends — specific, dated, evidenced shifts.

Search queries to run (adapt to the specific market):

• Is this industry experiencing a structural shift right now? (New technology, regulation, business model disruption)
• What's the adoption curve for this product category? (Innovators? Early adopters? Early majority? Late majority?)
• Are buyers actively changing their behavior or tools? (Tool switching, workflow changes, new budget allocation)
• Are there regulatory deadlines or policy changes creating urgency? (Compliance dates, new requirements, enforcement actions)
• How many new entrants have appeared in the last 12-24 months? (Entry rate = market signal)
• Are incumbents showing signs of vulnerability? (Layoffs, leadership turnover, missed product cycles, acquisition activity)
• What technology cost or capability change makes this newly viable? (API costs, AI capabilities, infrastructure, platforms)
• What does Google Trends show for this problem domain? (Rising, flat, declining)
• Are adjacent markets already disrupted? (The domino effect — has the wave already hit neighboring sectors?)

From prior intelligence (if available):

• competitor-analysis: incumbent funding status, hiring/firing signals, product stagnation, market entry rate
• market-size: demand signals, growth trajectory, market maturity stage
• problem-analysis: urgency triggers, buyer behavior shifts, pain trajectory (getting worse vs. stable)

STEP 2 — NINE-DIMENSION TIMING ASSESSMENT

Work through all nine dimensions. For each, assess based on research evidence, rate categorically, and note the specific evidence that supports the rating.

Dimension 1: Strategic Inflection Point

Is a 10x force reshaping this industry right now? A strategic inflection point is when the fundamentals of the business change so dramatically that the old rules no longer apply. It's not a trend — it's a phase change.

10x force types:

• Technology inflection (AI, mobile, cloud, blockchain — but only when adoption crosses a threshold)
• Regulatory inflection (new law, deregulation, compliance mandate)
• Business model inflection (subscription replaces perpetual, self-serve replaces sales-led)
• Cost structure inflection (what was expensive becomes cheap — or vice versa)
• Behavioral inflection (pandemic-driven remote work, generational shift, platform migration)

What to evaluate:

• Can you name the specific 10x force? (If you can't name it, it's not an inflection point)
• Is it already reshaping the industry, or is it still theoretical?
• How far along is the transformation? (Early = opportunity. Late = you're chasing.)
• Are incumbents adapting or in denial? (Denial = larger window for entrants)
• Is this a permanent shift or a temporary disruption?

Rate: INFLECTION IN PROGRESS / EMERGING / INCREMENTAL / NONE

• INFLECTION IN PROGRESS: A 10x force is actively reshaping the industry right now. Old rules are breaking. New winners are emerging.
• EMERGING: A 10x force is visible but hasn't fully hit. Early signals are clear. Transformation is 12-24 months out.
• INCREMENTAL: The industry is evolving gradually. No single force is creating a step change.
• NONE: The industry is stable. No meaningful structural change is occurring.

Dimension 2: Technology Adoption Stage

Where on the technology adoption lifecycle is this product category? The sweet spot for bootstrappers is different from the sweet spot for VC-backed startups.

Adoption lifecycle stages:

The Chasm: The gap between early adopters and early majority is where most products die. Early adopters buy on vision. The early majority buys on proof. Bootstrappers struggle in the chasm because they lack the resources to bridge it.

What to evaluate:

• Who's currently buying in this category? (Innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority?)
• Has the category crossed the chasm? (Are pragmatic buyers purchasing, or only visionaries?)
• Is there a "whole product" that the early majority can use without hand-holding?
• Is social proof accumulating? (Case studies, reviews, word-of-mouth)
• What's the evidence for the current adoption stage? (Market reports, competitor customer counts, industry surveys)

Rate: SWEET SPOT / EARLY BUT VIABLE / TOO EARLY / TOO LATE

• SWEET SPOT: Early majority is buying. Category is proven. Word-of-mouth works. Competition exists but isn't saturated.
• EARLY BUT VIABLE: Early adopters are buying. Chasm is approaching. Product category exists but isn't mainstream.
• TOO EARLY: Only innovators are experimenting. No proven demand. Bootstrappers will run out of runway before the market arrives.
• TOO LATE: Late majority and laggards. Market is commoditized. Incumbents are entrenched. Margin compression.

Dimension 3: Buyer Behavior Shift

Are buyers actively changing how they work, what they buy, or what tools they use? Behavior change is the strongest timing signal — it creates openness to new solutions.

Behavior shift types:

What to evaluate:

• Are buyers actively switching tools in this category? (Churn from incumbents = opportunity)
• Are new workflows creating demand for tools that didn't exist before?
• Is there a generational shift in decision-makers? (New buyers with different expectations)
• Are budgets moving? (From what category to what category?)
• Is there a platform migration that resets switching costs?
• Is the shift visible in job postings, conference topics, community discussions?

Rate: SHIFTING NOW / STARTING TO SHIFT / STABLE / ENTRENCHED

• SHIFTING NOW: Buyers are actively changing tools, workflows, or budgets. Evidence of migration is abundant.
• STARTING TO SHIFT: Early signals of behavior change. Some buyers are experimenting. Majority hasn't moved yet.
• STABLE: Buyers are satisfied with current solutions. No significant behavior change is occurring.
• ENTRENCHED: Buyers are deeply committed to existing solutions. Switching costs are high and behavior is locked in.

Dimension 4: Market Window & Entry Timing

How long does the entry window stay open? Every market shift creates a window — the question is whether it's wide enough for a bootstrapper to get through.

Window dynamics:

• Opening phase: Market is shifting, incumbents haven't responded, new entrants are arriving. Maximum opportunity.
• Narrowing phase: Market is recognized, competitors are flooding in, incumbents are waking up. Clock is ticking.
• Closing phase: Market positions are solidifying, winners are emerging, late entrants face uphill battles.
• Closed: Market is consolidated. Incumbents have adapted. New entrants face established competition with moats.

What to evaluate:

• How many competitors have entered in the last 12-24 months? (Entry rate = window width signal)
• Are incumbents responding to the shift? (Launching new products, acquiring startups, changing pricing)
• How fast is the market consolidating? (Are winners emerging, or is it still fragmented?)
• Can a bootstrapper reach first paying customer before the window narrows significantly?
• What's the realistic timeline from start to first revenue in this market?
• Is there a land-grab dynamic? (First to niche wins) Or a quality dynamic? (Best product wins regardless of timing)

Rate: OPEN 12+ MO / NARROWING 3-12 MO / CLOSING < 3 MO / CLOSED

• OPEN 12+ MO: Market is early, fragmented, and growing. Plenty of room for new entrants. No dominant player yet.
• NARROWING 3-12 MO: Competition is increasing rapidly. Incumbents are responding. Window is shrinking but still passable.
• CLOSING < 3 MO: Market is consolidating fast. Winners are emerging. Very late to enter without a differentiated wedge.
• CLOSED: Market positions are locked. Incumbents have adapted. Entry requires displacing an established player.

Dimension 5: Regulatory & Policy Catalyst

Do regulatory or policy forces create demand, destroy demand, or change the competitive landscape? Regulation is one of the most powerful timing forces — it creates mandatory action with deadlines.

Regulatory force types:

What to evaluate:

• Is there a specific regulation creating demand for this product category?
• What's the compliance deadline? (Enacted with a date = strong. Proposed = weak.)
• Is enforcement increasing? (Laws without enforcement don't create urgency.)
• Does regulation create barriers to entry that benefit early movers?
• Does regulation destroy existing business models, creating a vacuum?
• Is the regulatory environment stable or volatile? (Volatility = risk for building compliance-dependent products)

Rate: ACTIVE TAILWIND / EMERGING / NEUTRAL / HEADWIND

• ACTIVE TAILWIND: Enacted regulation with dates/enforcement is creating demand. Businesses are forced to act.
• EMERGING: Proposed or recently enacted regulation that will likely create demand within 12-24 months.
• NEUTRAL: No significant regulatory force acting on this market.
• HEADWIND: Regulation threatens the viability of this product category or creates compliance costs that hurt bootstrappers disproportionately.

Dimension 6: Supply-Side Disruption

Has the cost or capability of key inputs changed dramatically? When what was expensive becomes cheap (or what was impossible becomes possible), it creates a timing window for new business models.

Supply-side shift types:

What to evaluate:

• Has a key input cost dropped 10x in the last 2-3 years? (What specifically?)
• Has a new capability become available that wasn't possible before? (What specifically?)
• Does this supply-side change enable a fundamentally different product or business model?
• Are incumbents exploiting this shift, or are they locked into old cost structures?
• Is the supply-side change still accelerating, or has it plateaued?
• Can a bootstrapper access this supply-side advantage at the same cost as a funded competitor?

Rate: MAJOR / SIGNIFICANT / MARGINAL / NONE

• MAJOR: A 10x cost or capability change has occurred in the last 1-2 years that fundamentally enables this product or business model.
• SIGNIFICANT: A meaningful cost or capability improvement has occurred, creating a better opportunity than existed before.
• MARGINAL: Some improvement, but not enough to fundamentally change what's possible.
• NONE: No meaningful supply-side change. The same tools and costs as 3 years ago.

Dimension 7: Demand Urgency & Catalysts

What recent events or forces are making buyers act NOW rather than "someday"? Demand urgency is the difference between a buyer who browses and one who pulls out a credit card.

Catalyst types:

What to evaluate:

• Is there a specific recent event making this problem more urgent? (Not theoretical — something that actually happened)
• Is demand increasing, stable, or declining? (Google Trends, search volume, community activity)
• Are buyers actively searching for solutions right now? (Search intent, RFPs, social media questions)
• Is there seasonal or cyclical demand? (If so, where in the cycle are we?)
• Are competitors reporting growth? (Growing competitor revenue = growing market demand)
• Are trigger events firing now, or are they projected? (Current triggers = real. Projected triggers = speculation.)

Rate: CATALYST ACTIVE / BUILDING / NONE / FADING

• CATALYST ACTIVE: Specific, identifiable events are creating urgency NOW. Buyers are actively seeking solutions.
• BUILDING: Demand signals are growing. Catalysts are forming but haven't fully hit. Urgency will increase.
• NONE: No specific catalyst. Demand is organic and steady. No urgency beyond general awareness.
• FADING: A previous catalyst is dissipating. Peak demand may have passed. Market is cooling.

Dimension 8: Incumbent Vulnerability Window

Are incumbents in a period of weakness, distraction, or transition? Incumbent vulnerability creates timing windows that don't last.

Vulnerability types:

What to evaluate:

• Are major incumbents going through leadership, financial, or strategic transitions?
• Have incumbents recently acquired companies? (Integration = distraction)
• Are incumbents laying off or restructuring? (Cost-cutting = reduced product investment)
• Are incumbent customer satisfaction scores declining? (Reviews, NPS, social sentiment)
• Are incumbents over-serving enterprise and ignoring SMB? (Classic bootstrapper entry point)
• How long is this vulnerability window likely to last?

Rate: WINDOW OPEN / CRACKING / STABLE / CONSOLIDATING

• WINDOW OPEN: Major incumbents are distracted, transitioning, or struggling. Clear opportunity for new entrants.
• CRACKING: Signs of incumbent weakness are emerging. Not yet a full window but cracks are visible.
• STABLE: Incumbents are executing well. No significant vulnerability. Entry requires direct competition.
• CONSOLIDATING: Incumbents are strengthening. M&A is reducing competition. Entry is harder than 12 months ago.

Dimension 9: Bootstrapper Timing Fit

Does the timing of this market work specifically for a self-funded founder? VC-backed startups and bootstrappers have fundamentally different timing constraints.

Timing fit factors:

What to evaluate:

• How long from launch to first paying customer? (> 6 months = risky for bootstrappers)
• Does the market require education or category creation? (If yes, bootstrappers are at a disadvantage)
• Can a solo founder or tiny team serve initial customers? (Or does it require a sales team from day one?)
• Is the competition level right? (Some = validated market. Too much = CAC too high. None = market doesn't exist yet.)
• Can you iterate quickly? (Fast feedback loops favor bootstrappers)
• Does the timing require burning money to capture market before a window closes? (If yes, bootstrappers lose)

Rate: FAVORS BOOTSTRAPPER / NEUTRAL / FAVORS FUNDED / UNFAVORABLE

• FAVORS BOOTSTRAPPER: Short time-to-revenue, proven demand, self-serve viable, fragmented competition, fast iteration.
• NEUTRAL: Viable for bootstrappers but no inherent timing advantage. Success depends on execution, not timing.
• FAVORS FUNDED: Long sales cycles, market education needed, or land-grab dynamics that favor capital-backed speed.
• UNFAVORABLE: Timing actively works against bootstrappers — window is closing fast, requires capital to capture, or demand is too early.

STEP 3 — VALIDATION GATES

Five binary checks. Pass/fail. No nuance.

Gates passed: X/5

• 5/5: Timing is strong — the wave is here and the window is open
• 4/5: Viable timing — one concern to monitor but not blocking
• 3/5: Borderline — timing gaps create meaningful risk
• < 3/5: RED FLAG — timing does not favor this entry. Either wait, pivot, or accept the risk.

STEP 4 — OUTPUT

Produce the full report using the template below.

Output Template

# TIMING ANALYSIS: [Product/Idea Name]

Research date: [date]
Stage: [Idea / MVP / Live Product]
Market: [Industry/market being entered]
Founder's timing thesis: "[Why the founder believes now is the right time — stated or inferred]"

---

## TIMING VERDICT

Overall timing: [TIMING IS NOW / WINDOW OPEN / TOO EARLY / TOO LATE / TIMING UNCLEAR]

| Dimension | Rating | Evidence Summary |
|-----------|--------|-----------------|
| Strategic Inflection Point | INFLECTION IN PROGRESS / EMERGING / INCREMENTAL / NONE | |
| Technology Adoption Stage | SWEET SPOT / EARLY BUT VIABLE / TOO EARLY / TOO LATE | |
| Buyer Behavior Shift | SHIFTING NOW / STARTING TO SHIFT / STABLE / ENTRENCHED | |
| Market Window & Entry Timing | OPEN 12+ MO / NARROWING 3-12 MO / CLOSING < 3 MO / CLOSED | |
| Regulatory & Policy Catalyst | ACTIVE TAILWIND / EMERGING / NEUTRAL / HEADWIND | |
| Supply-Side Disruption | MAJOR / SIGNIFICANT / MARGINAL / NONE | |
| Demand Urgency & Catalysts | CATALYST ACTIVE / BUILDING / NONE / FADING | |
| Incumbent Vulnerability Window | WINDOW OPEN / CRACKING / STABLE / CONSOLIDATING | |
| Bootstrapper Timing Fit | FAVORS BOOTSTRAPPER / NEUTRAL / FAVORS FUNDED / UNFAVORABLE | |

---

## VALIDATION GATES

| # | Gate | Result |
|---|------|--------|
| 1 | At least one 10x force is identifiable and active | PASS / FAIL |
| 2 | Buyers changing or forced to change within 12 months | PASS / FAIL |
| 3 | Bootstrapper can reach first customer before window narrows | PASS / FAIL |
| 4 | "Why now" doesn't depend on a single speculative prediction | PASS / FAIL |
| 5 | Demand evidence is current, not projected | PASS / FAIL |

**Gates passed: X/5** — [Assessment: Timing is strong / Viable / Borderline / RED FLAG]

---

## STRATEGIC INFLECTION POINT DEEP DIVE

**The 10x force**: [Name the specific force reshaping this industry — or state that none exists]

**Evidence of inflection:**

| Signal | Evidence | Date/Recency | Strength |
|--------|----------|-------------|----------|
| [Market signal] | [Specific data point or event] | [When] | Strong/Moderate/Weak |
| [Technology signal] | [Specific data point] | [When] | |
| [Behavioral signal] | [Specific data point] | [When] | |

**Inflection stage**: [Pre-inflection / Early inflection / Mid-inflection / Post-inflection]
**Transformation timeline**: [How long until the old way is fully replaced — months/years]
**Incumbent response**: [Adapting / In denial / Mixed / Already adapted]

---

## ADOPTION STAGE ASSESSMENT

**Current adoption stage**: [Innovators / Early Adopters / Early Majority / Late Majority / Laggards]

**Evidence for stage classification:**
- Who's buying now: [Specific buyer types and their characteristics]
- Chasm status: [Pre-chasm / In the chasm / Crossed / N/A]
- Social proof level: [None / Emerging / Moderate / Strong]
- Whole product availability: [Missing / Partial / Complete]

**Bootstrapper sweet spot?** [Yes/No — explain why this stage works or doesn't work for self-funded entry]

---

## BUYER BEHAVIOR SHIFT ASSESSMENT

**Active shifts identified:**

| Shift | From → To | Evidence | Timeline |
|-------|-----------|----------|----------|
| [Behavior change] | [Old way] → [New way] | [Specific evidence] | [Happening now / 6 months / 12+ months] |
| [Tool migration] | [Legacy] → [Modern] | [Evidence] | |
| [Budget reallocation] | [Old category] → [New category] | [Evidence] | |

**Shift velocity**: [Accelerating / Steady / Decelerating / Not started]
**Buyer readiness**: [Ready to buy / Open to exploration / Resistant to change]

---

## MARKET WINDOW ASSESSMENT

**Window status**: [OPEN / NARROWING / CLOSING / CLOSED]

**Entry rate**: [Number of new entrants in the last 12-24 months and what it signals]
**Incumbent response speed**: [Fast / Moderate / Slow / None — how quickly are they adapting?]
**Consolidation risk**: [Low / Medium / High — how fast are winners emerging?]

**Time-to-first-revenue estimate**: [How long from start to first paying customer in this market]
**Window-vs-revenue race**: [Can a bootstrapper reach revenue before the window narrows? YES / TIGHT / NO]

---

## REGULATORY & POLICY ASSESSMENT

**Active regulatory forces:**

| Regulation/Policy | Status | Deadline | Impact on This Business |
|------------------|--------|----------|------------------------|
| [Regulation name] | Enacted / Proposed / Under review | [Date if applicable] | Creates demand / Barrier / Neutral / Threat |
| [Policy change] | | | |

**Regulatory trajectory**: [Tightening / Loosening / Stable / Unpredictable]
**Regulatory risk**: [Low / Medium / High — is the business model dependent on regulatory status quo?]

---

## SUPPLY-SIDE DISRUPTION ASSESSMENT

**Key input changes:**

| Input | Change | Magnitude | Impact on Business Model |
|-------|--------|-----------|-------------------------|
| [Technology/cost/capability] | [What changed] | [10x / 5x / 2x / marginal] | [Enables new product / Reduces cost / Opens market / Minimal] |

**Acceleration**: [Still accelerating / Plateauing / One-time shift]
**Bootstrapper access**: [Equal access / Disadvantaged / Advantaged — relative to funded competitors]

---

## DEMAND URGENCY ASSESSMENT

**Active catalysts:**

| Catalyst | Type | Recency | Duration |
|----------|------|---------|----------|
| [Specific event/force] | Crisis / Deadline / Competitive / Cost / Organizational | [When it started] | [Ongoing / Temporary / Fading] |

**Demand trajectory**: [Rising / Peak / Stable / Declining]
**Search/community signals**: [Google Trends direction, community activity level, social media volume]

---

## INCUMBENT VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

**Incumbent vulnerability map:**

| Incumbent | Vulnerability | Signal | Window Duration |
|-----------|-------------- |--------|----------------|
| [Name] | [Leadership / M&A / Financial / Product / Strategic] | [Specific evidence] | [Estimated months] |

**Overall incumbent posture**: [Distracted / Weakening / Stable / Strengthening / Consolidating]
**Bootstrapper entry point**: [What specific incumbent weakness creates the best entry?]

---

## TIMING RISK MAP

| Risk | Impact | Likelihood | Mitigation |
|------|--------|------------|-----------|
| [Window closes faster than expected] | [Effect on the business] | High/Medium/Low | [Action or "accept"] |
| [Regulation doesn't materialize] | | | |
| [Incumbents respond faster than expected] | | | |
| [Adoption stalls at the chasm] | | | |
| [Demand catalyst fades] | | | |

---

## BOTTOM LINE

**Timing verdict**: [TIMING IS NOW / WINDOW OPEN / TOO EARLY / TOO LATE / TIMING UNCLEAR]

[2-3 sentences. Is the timing right for a bootstrapper to enter this market? What's the strongest timing signal? What's the biggest timing risk? If timing is wrong, when would it be right — and is it worth waiting?]

**The honest answer to "why now?":**
[One sentence. The real answer, not the narrative. If the answer is "there's no compelling reason why now," say so.]

**Timing risk:**
[One sentence. The single most likely way timing kills this business.]

**Top 3 actions for the next 30 days:**
1. [Specific, concrete, actionable — related to validating or exploiting the timing window]
2. [Specific, concrete, actionable]
3. [Specific, concrete, actionable]

---
[If invoked as sub-skill: produce DIGEST summary per `_shared/philosophy.md` Digest Mode format]

Important Rules

See _shared/philosophy.md Universal Skill Rules.

Skill-specific rules:

• Evidence over narrative — every rating must cite specific, dated evidence. "The market is shifting" is not analysis. "Shopify reported 34% merchant growth in Q3 2025 while BigCommerce laid off 12% of staff in January 2026" is analysis.
• Date everything — timing analysis is useless without dates. Every piece of evidence must include when it happened. A "trend" from 2022 is not current evidence.
• Distinguish current from projected — "AI will transform healthcare" is projection. "Three of the top 5 EHR vendors launched AI features in 2025, and CMS finalized AI documentation rules effective March 2026" is evidence. Timing analysis deals in facts, not forecasts.
• The bootstrapper timing lens — always assess whether the timing works for someone spending their own money and time. A market that's "perfect for a Series A company" may be terrible for a bootstrapper.
• Be honest about "too early" — "too early" is the most expensive mistake for a bootstrapper. It sounds optimistic ("we're ahead of the curve!") but it means burning personal resources while waiting for the market to arrive. If the timing is too early, say so and estimate when it won't be.
• Be honest about "too late" — entering a consolidating market isn't always fatal, but it requires a differentiated wedge. If the window is closing, assess whether a niche entry is still viable.
• Incumbent vulnerability is temporary — vulnerability windows close. Assess how long the window lasts and whether a bootstrapper can exploit it in time.
• Name names and cite dates — "incumbents are vulnerable" is vague. "[Incumbent name] laid off 200 engineers in [month] and hasn't shipped a major update since [date]" is actionable.