hollandkevint The 5 Questions
Ask each question. Score 1-5. Push back on optimistic answers with "What evidence do you have for that?" Unverified optimism scores lower.
1. Problem Severity (1-5)
How painful is this problem for the people who have it?
| Score | Severity | Signal |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Hair on fire | People are actively spending money or significant time on workarounds |
| 4 | Significant pain | Regular complaints, dedicated manual processes, measurable cost |
| 3 | Moderate annoyance | People notice it, work around it, don't prioritize fixing it |
| 2 | Mild inconvenience | Shrug and move on, rarely mentioned unprompted |
| 1 | Solution looking for a problem | You think it's a problem; they don't |
Ask: "Who has this problem? How do you know? What are they doing about it today?"
If the user can't name specific people or specific workarounds, score 1-2.
2. Market Reality (1-5)
Can you reach enough people who have this problem and will pay to solve it?
| Score | Reality | Signal |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Known buyers | You've talked to 10+ people who said "I'd pay for that" |
| 4 | Strong signals | Active communities discussing this problem, competitor revenue visible |
| 3 | Plausible market | Logical argument for demand, some anecdotal evidence |
| 2 | Assumed market | "Everyone needs this" with no validation |
| 1 | Imagined market | No evidence anyone wants this beyond the builder |
Ask: "How many people have you talked to about this? What did they say, unprompted?"
3. Differentiation (1-5)
Why would someone choose this over what exists?
| Score | Edge | Signal |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Category creator | Nothing like this exists; you're defining the space |
| 4 | 10x better on one axis | Dramatically faster, cheaper, simpler, or more specific |
| 3 | Meaningfully different | Clear differentiation, but alternatives exist |
| 2 | Slightly better | Incremental improvement, easy to ignore |
| 1 | Me-too | Another version of something that already works fine |
Ask: "What do people use today? Why would they switch? What's the switching cost?"
4. Founder-Market Fit (1-5)
Are YOU the right person to build this?
| Score | Fit | Signal |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Deep domain + lived problem | You've spent years in this space AND have this problem yourself |
| 4 | Deep domain OR lived problem | Strong on one dimension |
| 3 | Adjacent experience | Related domain, transferable skills |
| 2 | Interested outsider | Researched but no direct experience |
| 1 | No connection | Chasing a trend, no domain knowledge |
Ask: "How long have you been in this space? Do you have this problem yourself? Who do you already know in this market?"
5. Execution Reality (1-5)
Can you actually build and ship this?
| Score | Reality | Signal |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Buildable this week | Clear technical path, tools in hand, scope is tight |
| 4 | Buildable this month | Known unknowns, but path exists |
| 3 | Buildable this quarter | Significant technical work, dependencies to resolve |
| 2 | Research required | Unsure if the technical approach even works |
| 1 | Moonshot | Requires breakthroughs or resources you don't have |
Ask: "What's the smallest version you could ship? How long would it take? What would you need that you don't have?"
Scoring
Multiply all five scores. Maximum: 3,125.
| Composite | Verdict | What to do |
|---|---|---|
| 500+ | Proceed | Build the smallest version. Ship it. Measure. |
| 200-499 | Pivot | The idea has signal, but something's off. Fix the weakest dimension or reframe. |
| <200 | Kill | Walk away. Document why. Revisit only if new evidence surfaces. |
CRITICAL: A score of 1 on any dimension kills the idea regardless of composite score. You can't overcome zero evidence of demand, no differentiation, or no ability to execute.
Anti-Sycophancy Protocol
Do NOT soften the kill recommendation. If the scores say kill, say kill. Explain why clearly. Offer what would need to change for a re-evaluation.
The user came here for truth, not comfort. A good kill saves months of wasted effort.
Output
# Kill/Go Assessment: [Idea Name]
Date: [date]
## Scores
| Dimension | Score | Evidence |
|-----------|-------|----------|
| Problem Severity | X/5 | [key evidence] |
| Market Reality | X/5 | [key evidence] |
| Differentiation | X/5 | [key evidence] |
| Founder-Market Fit | X/5 | [key evidence] |
| Execution Reality | X/5 | [key evidence] |
**Composite: [X] / 3,125**
## Verdict: [PROCEED / PIVOT / KILL]
[2-3 sentence rationale]
## Weakest Dimension
[Which scored lowest and what would change it]
## Recommended Next Step
[One specific action]
Next step
Proceed or pivot → run decision-brief to write it up. Kill → run codify to record why, so the lesson survives.
Part of the ThinkHaven Method Kit by Kevin Holland. Full Board of Directors experience: ThinkHaven