Stg Designing Gtm

GTM Plan Design

Design the complete go-to-market plan for the hypothesis register. Translate channel strategy, value proposition, growth architecture, and segment data into a phased execution plan with gates, KPIs, messaging, constraints, and kill criteria.

Procedure

Step 1: Load Inputs [S]

Read upstream outputs:

• Value Proposition (register section 4): claim, JTBD dimensions, differentiator, alternative, unique capability, clause validation status.
• Channel Strategy from Unit Economics (register section 3): ranked channel list with per-channel CAC, investment splits, phase sequencing, channel-economics coherence result.
• Growth Architecture (register section 5): PLG / Network / Sales-Led / Hybrid, required conditions, rationale.
• Segment Hypothesis (register section 2): primary segment, trigger event, budget owner, where they gather, observable characteristics, access paths.
• Pricing from Unit Economics (register section 3): ACV range, tier structure, upgrade triggers.
• Mode (VENTURE / BOOTSTRAP / HYBRID) from governor.

Assemble input summary with sources.

Gate: inputs_loaded: bool -- channel strategy, growth architecture, value proposition, and segment hypothesis all available.

• Pass: Step 2.
• Fail: If channel strategy missing, cannot design GTM -- stg-designing-channels must run first. If growth architecture missing, infer from ACV and buyer type with reduced confidence and flag.

Step 2: Select GTM Architecture [R]

Match growth architecture to GTM execution pattern. The architecture constrains which GTM motions are viable. Getting this wrong misallocates every downstream dollar and hire.

Architecture-GTM mismatches to check:

Gate: architecture_matched: bool -- one GTM pattern selected, no architecture-GTM mismatch detected.

• Pass: Step 3.
• Fail: If mismatch detected, document the mismatch with specific numbers (ACV vs CAC threshold) and flag as a finding. Proceed with the closest viable pattern and note the risk.

Step 3: Design Phase-Gated Channel Sequence [K-grounded]

Grounded in: channel strategy from Step 1, GTM pattern from Step 2, mode (VENTURE/BOOTSTRAP/HYBRID).

Design three phases. Each phase has: channels, budget allocation, exit gate to next phase, and estimated timeline.

Phase 1: Validation (Pre-PMF)

Objective: find working acquisition with minimal spend. Learn, do not scale.

Select 1-2 channels maximum from channel strategy. Criteria:

• Lowest absolute cost to test (not lowest CAC -- lowest total spend to learn)
• Fastest feedback loop (paid > content, outbound > inbound for learning speed)
• Strongest founder-channel fit

Phase 1 channel selection by GTM pattern:

Budget allocation: 70-80% to foundation channel, 20-30% to secondary.

Exit gate to Phase 2 (ALL must hold):

• Channel produces repeatable acquisition (not one-off spikes)
• CAC is measurable and within 2x of target blended CAC
• Conversion funnel has > 100 data points at each stage
• Time to convert is understood with specific range

Phase 2: Traction (Post-PMF)

Objective: scale working channels, add one adjacent channel.

Add channels that:

• Require the volume/data Phase 1 produced (paid needs conversion data)
• Have lower marginal CAC at scale than Phase 1 channels
• Diversify acquisition risk (must not be > 70% from one channel)

Phase 2 additions by GTM pattern:

Budget: 50-60% scale channel, 20-30% foundation (maintenance), 10-20% experimental.

Exit gate to Phase 3 (ALL must hold):

• At least 2 channels producing consistent acquisition
• No single channel > 70% of total acquisition
• Blended CAC within target range
• Net revenue retention measurable

Phase 3: Scale (Optimization)

Objective: maximize efficiency, add programmatic channels.

• Compounding channels mature (content/SEO at 18-24 months)
• Retargeting/remarketing across channels
• International expansion if applicable
• Analyst/PR for brand leverage

Budget: 40-50% primary, 20-30% secondary, 10-20% compounding, 10% experimental.

For each phase, state: channels active, budget split (must sum to 100%), timeline estimate, and exit gate criteria.

Gate: sequence_designed: bool -- three phases with channels, budgets summing to 100%, exit gates with specific measurable criteria.

• Pass: Step 4.
• Fail: If phases lack exit gates, add specific measurable criteria. If budgets do not sum to 100%, rebalance.

Step 4: Define Target KPIs per Phase [R]

For each phase, define 3-5 KPIs. KPIs must be specific, measurable, and tied to the GTM pattern.

KPI selection by GTM pattern and phase:

PLG KPIs:

Sales-Led KPIs:

Hybrid KPIs:

Network/Marketplace KPIs:

Flag any KPI where the benchmark requires ground-truth data (T3) to establish a realistic target.

Gate: kpis_defined: bool -- 3-5 KPIs per phase, each with specific benchmark and measurement method.

• Pass: Step 5.
• Fail: Replace vanity metrics (pageviews, signups without activation) with conversion or retention metrics.

Step 5: Build Messaging Framework [K-grounded]

Grounded in: value proposition (section 4), segment hypothesis (section 2), competitive analysis.

Translate the value proposition into channel-adapted messaging across buyer awareness levels.

5a. Decompose the value proposition into messaging components:

From the VP claim, extract:

• Headline: [Differentiator] for [Target] -- short, specific, no jargon
• Subhead: Expand the problem and hint at mechanism
• Proof points: 3 maximum. Each specific (numbers, names, timeframes)
• CTA per awareness level:

5b. Adapt messaging per channel:

5c. State what is testable vs assumed:

Every messaging claim inherits the tier of the hypothesis it derives from. If the VP clause is T2, the messaging derived from it is T2. Flag T3-dependent messaging explicitly.

Gate: messaging_built: bool -- headline, subhead, proof points, awareness-level CTAs, and per-channel adaptations all produced. VP clause tracing documented.

• Pass: Step 6.
• Fail: If messaging cannot trace to VP claims, the VP is too vague for GTM. Flag as a dependency issue.

Step 6: Derive Operational Constraints [S]

Extract constraints that limit GTM execution from each hypothesis:

Compile constraint list with source hypothesis and blast radius (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW) if violated.

Gate: constraints_derived: bool -- at least one constraint from each upstream hypothesis documented with blast radius.

• Pass: Step 7.
• Fail: If a hypothesis provides no constraints, re-read it. Every hypothesis constrains GTM somehow.

Step 7: Define Success and Kill Criteria per Phase [R]

For each phase, define:

Success criteria (move to next phase):

• The exit gate from Step 3 restated as measurable outcomes
• Minimum data thresholds (not just "positive results" -- specific conversion rates, specific pipeline numbers, specific CAC ranges)

Kill criteria (stop or pivot):

Kill criteria must be specific and observable. "Not working" is not a kill criterion. "< 50% of target pipeline after 90-day test with $X budget" is a kill criterion.

Gate: criteria_defined: bool -- every phase has success criteria with specific numbers and kill criteria with timeframes and actions.

• Pass: Step 8.
• Fail: Replace qualitative criteria ("good traction") with quantitative thresholds.

Step 8: Apply Diagnostic Framework [R]

Before writing, run the diagnostic sequence against the designed plan to catch structural issues:

1. Is there demand? (Does the segment search for this problem? Do
   they respond to outbound?)
   -> If NO from research: flag as T3 gap. Problem hypothesis may need
      revisiting.

2. Can the funnel convert? (Is the messaging-market fit plausible given
   awareness-level mapping?)
   -> If messaging depends on T3 claims: flag messaging as hypothesis,
      not plan.

3. Can users activate? (Is time-to-value compatible with the growth
   architecture?)
   -> If PLG and time-to-value > 1 day: flag activation risk.

4. Is CAC sustainable? (Does the channel mix produce blended CAC within
   constraints?)
   -> If blended CAC > 1/3 first-year ACV: flag economics risk.

5. Is the plan survivable? (Can the team execute Phase 1 channels given
   founder-channel fit?)
   -> If required channels do not match team capabilities: flag
      execution risk.

Document findings from this diagnostic as GTM risks in the plan.

Gate: diagnostic_passed: bool -- all 5 diagnostic checks run, findings documented.

• Pass: Step 9.
• Fail: Findings are information, not blockers. Document and proceed. Structural issues (demand nonexistent, CAC impossible) should be flagged prominently but do not prevent writing the plan.

Step 9: Write GTM Plan Section [S]

Write register section 7 matching the register format:

## 7. GTM Plan (Proposed)

**Support State:** PROPOSED
**Last Updated:** {date}

### GTM Architecture
- Pattern: {PLG / Sales-Led / Network / Hybrid / Marketplace}
- Rationale: {why this pattern for this architecture and ACV}

### Channel Sequence

**Phase 1: Validation ({timeline})**
- Channels: {channel 1 (budget %), channel 2 (budget %)}
- Total budget: {estimate}
- Target KPIs: {3-5 specific KPIs with benchmarks}
- Exit gate: {specific measurable criteria}
- Kill criteria: {specific triggers with timeframes}

**Phase 2: Traction ({timeline})**
- Channels: {existing + additions (budget %)}
- Target KPIs: {3-5 specific KPIs with benchmarks}
- Exit gate: {specific measurable criteria}
- Kill criteria: {specific triggers with timeframes}

**Phase 3: Scale ({timeline})**
- Channels: {full mix (budget %)}
- Target KPIs: {3-5 specific KPIs with benchmarks}
- Kill criteria: {specific triggers with timeframes}

### Messaging Framework
- Headline: {from VP}
- Subhead: {problem expansion}
- Proof points: {3 max, specific}
- Awareness-level CTAs: {table}
- Channel adaptations: {per active channel}

### Operational Constraints
{constraint list with source hypothesis and blast radius}

### GTM Risks
{diagnostic findings from Step 8}

### Constraints from Hypotheses
- From Problem: {constraint}
- From Segment: {constraint}
- From Unit Economics: {constraint}
- From Growth Architecture: {constraint}

Set support state to PROPOSED. Gap Definer validates or blocks.

Gate: section_written: bool -- all subsections populated, support state = PROPOSED, every KPI has a benchmark, every phase has exit/kill criteria with specific numbers.

• Pass: Done.
• Fail: Fix missing subsections. Every field must be populated.

Quality Criteria

• Growth architecture consumed from section 5 (not re-derived)
• Channel strategy consumed from section 3 (not re-derived)
• Value proposition consumed from section 4 (not re-derived)
• Messaging traces to VP claims with tier inheritance
• Phase gates have specific measurable criteria (not qualitative)
• KPIs include benchmarks from domain knowledge (not invented)
• Kill criteria have timeframes and specific actions
• Operational constraints cite source hypothesis
• Budget splits sum to 100% per phase
• No channel-architecture mismatch present without flagged risk
• Diagnostic framework run and findings documented
• All CAC benchmarks and conversion benchmarks cite domain basis

Failure Modes

Boundaries

In scope: GTM architecture selection, phase-gated channel sequencing, target KPIs with benchmarks, messaging framework derived from VP, operational constraint derivation, success/kill criteria per phase, diagnostic check.

Out of scope: Channel identification and per-channel CAC estimation (stg-designing-channels), pricing design and tier architecture (stg-designing-pricing), LTV/CAC/payback calculation and cost structure (stg-calculating-economics), growth architecture selection and rationale (stg-designing-solutions), competitive landscape mapping (stg-analyzing-competition), GTM execution: content production, outreach cadences, campaign management, nurture flows (downstream execution systems).