JTBD Growth Strategist
Audit your market evidence before deciding to raise prices, differentiate, cut costs, or target a niche.
Use this when
- You have quantitative Opportunity Scores ($Opp \ge 10.0$) AND structured market evidence (price willingness-to-pay, unit cost, performance benchmarks, or environmental constraints).
- You want to evaluate whether a proposed strategy (differentiated, dominant, disruptive, discrete, sustaining) has sufficient prerequisite evidence.
- You want to identify disconfirming evidence that contradicts a proposed strategy.
Don't use this when
- You only have qualitative interview notes or complaints without market evidence (use
jtbd-context-explorer or jtbd-forces-analyzer).
- You have not yet computed quantitative Opportunity Scores (use
jtbd-opportunity-calculator).
- You want to invent pricing or strategy recommendations without data.
Minimum input
- Minimum Input:
opportunity_analysis results from jtbd-opportunity-calculator, target segment_definition, and structured market evidence (price_evidence, cost_evidence, performance_evidence, constraint_evidence). If required evidence is missing, returns status: insufficient_evidence.
What you get
- Decision Readiness Summary: Decision under review, present evidence, missing evidence, what cannot be decided yet, and the smallest next research step.
- Strategy Assessment Status:
evidence_aligned (all prerequisites met), hypothesis_only ($N < 100$), or insufficient_evidence (missing evidence).
- Excluded Strategies: Explicit reasons and contradicting evidence for excluded strategies.
Quick prompt
"Audit market evidence and evaluate candidate growth strategies for this opportunity dataset: '[Paste opportunity results and market evidence]'."
What to do next
- Status is
insufficient_evidence? Use decision_readiness.smallest_next_research_step to gather missing price WTP, cost-to-serve, or performance benchmark evidence via jtbd-switch-interview or user surveys.
Strategy Matrix Prerequisites
Performance / Price / Cost Strategies
| Strategy |
Minimum Evidence Prerequisites |
differentiated |
Underserved outcomes ($Opp \ge 12.0$) AND structured price_evidence showing willingness to pay a premium AND structured performance_evidence showing superior capability. |
dominant |
Underserved outcomes ($Opp \ge 10.0$) AND structured performance_evidence showing superior performance AND cost_evidence showing lower or parity cost-to-serve. |
disruptive |
Overserved outcomes ($Opp < 8.0$) OR non-consumption evidence AND structured cost_evidence supporting low-cost position and sufficient performance. |
sustaining |
Appropriately served outcomes ($8.0 \le Opp < 10.0$) in core market; requires parity price and cost structure for incremental performance. |
Context-Specific Strategy
| Strategy |
Minimum Evidence Prerequisites |
discrete |
1. Environmental, regulatory, security, geographic, or workflow constraint.2. Segment outcome priorities demonstrably different from mainstream users.3. Operational evidence supporting solution feasibility under the constraint. |
Strategy Assessment Status Discipline
evidence_aligned:
opportunity_analysis.data_quality_status == "complete"
opportunity_analysis.calculation_status == "completed"
methodological_assessment.sample_size_status == "adequate" ($N \ge 100$)
- The selected candidate strategy meets EVERY prerequisite specified in its own rule with structured, sourced evidence
- No unmitigated disconfirming evidence exists
hypothesis_only:
methodological_assessment.sample_size_status == "small" ($N < 100$), OR evidence relies on unverified domain rationale. Candidate strategies are explicitly labeled as hypotheses.
insufficient_evidence:
opportunity_analysis.calculation_status != "completed", OR required evidence for the candidate strategy is missing.
Output Format
decision_readiness:
decision_under_review: ""
evidence_present: []
evidence_missing: []
what_cannot_be_decided_yet: []
smallest_next_research_step: ""
strategy_assessment:
status: evidence_aligned | hypothesis_only | insufficient_evidence
primary_rationale: ""
candidate_strategies:
- strategy: differentiated | dominant | disruptive | discrete | sustaining
confidence: high | medium | low
strategic_fit_rationale: ""
supporting_outcomes: []
prerequisite_conditions: []
excluded_strategies:
- strategy: differentiated | dominant | disruptive | discrete | sustaining
reason: ""
contradicting_evidence: []
disconfirming_evidence: []
evidence_gaps: []
next_validation_actions: []
Reference
Read references/growth-strategy-matrix-rules.md before:
- Checking price, cost, and performance evidence schemas
- Verifying discrete strategy prerequisite constraints
- Identifying disconfirming market evidence
1---2name: jtbd-growth-strategist3description: Map quantitative Opportunity Scores and market evidence to candidate growth strategies (differentiated, dominant, disruptive, discrete, sustaining). Use when given opportunity calculation results, segment metadata, and structured price/cost/performance evidence, and asked to evaluate strategic positioning or disconfirming evidence. Do not use to invent market evidence or recommend product strategy without required prerequisites.4---56# JTBD Growth Strategist78**Audit your market evidence before deciding to raise prices, differentiate, cut costs, or target a niche.**910---1112## Use this when13- You have quantitative Opportunity Scores ($Opp \ge 10.0$) AND structured market evidence (price willingness-to-pay, unit cost, performance benchmarks, or environmental constraints).14- You want to evaluate whether a proposed strategy (differentiated, dominant, disruptive, discrete, sustaining) has sufficient prerequisite evidence.15- You want to identify disconfirming evidence that contradicts a proposed strategy.1617## Don't use this when18- You only have qualitative interview notes or complaints without market evidence (use `jtbd-context-explorer` or `jtbd-forces-analyzer`).19- You have not yet computed quantitative Opportunity Scores (use `jtbd-opportunity-calculator`).20- You want to invent pricing or strategy recommendations without data.2122## Minimum input23- **Minimum Input**: `opportunity_analysis` results from `jtbd-opportunity-calculator`, target `segment_definition`, and structured market evidence (`price_evidence`, `cost_evidence`, `performance_evidence`, `constraint_evidence`). If required evidence is missing, returns `status: insufficient_evidence`.2425## What you get261. **Decision Readiness Summary**: Decision under review, present evidence, missing evidence, what cannot be decided yet, and the smallest next research step.272. **Strategy Assessment Status**: `evidence_aligned` (all prerequisites met), `hypothesis_only` ($N < 100$), or `insufficient_evidence` (missing evidence).283. **Excluded Strategies**: Explicit reasons and contradicting evidence for excluded strategies.2930## Quick prompt31> *"Audit market evidence and evaluate candidate growth strategies for this opportunity dataset: '[Paste opportunity results and market evidence]'."*3233## What to do next34- Status is `insufficient_evidence`? Use `decision_readiness.smallest_next_research_step` to gather missing price WTP, cost-to-serve, or performance benchmark evidence via **`jtbd-switch-interview`** or user surveys.3536---3738## Strategy Matrix Prerequisites3940### Performance / Price / Cost Strategies41| Strategy | Minimum Evidence Prerequisites |42| :--- | :--- |43| **`differentiated`** | Underserved outcomes ($Opp \ge 12.0$) AND structured `price_evidence` showing willingness to pay a premium AND structured `performance_evidence` showing superior capability. |44| **`dominant`** | Underserved outcomes ($Opp \ge 10.0$) AND structured `performance_evidence` showing superior performance AND `cost_evidence` showing lower or parity cost-to-serve. |45| **`disruptive`** | Overserved outcomes ($Opp < 8.0$) OR non-consumption evidence AND structured `cost_evidence` supporting low-cost position and sufficient performance. |46| **`sustaining`** | Appropriately served outcomes ($8.0 \le Opp < 10.0$) in core market; requires parity price and cost structure for incremental performance. |4748### Context-Specific Strategy49| Strategy | Minimum Evidence Prerequisites |50| :--- | :--- |51| **`discrete`** | 1. Environmental, regulatory, security, geographic, or workflow constraint.<br>2. Segment outcome priorities demonstrably different from mainstream users.<br>3. Operational evidence supporting solution feasibility under the constraint. |5253## Strategy Assessment Status Discipline5455- **`evidence_aligned`**:56 - `opportunity_analysis.data_quality_status == "complete"`57 - `opportunity_analysis.calculation_status == "completed"`58 - `methodological_assessment.sample_size_status == "adequate"` ($N \ge 100$)59 - The selected candidate strategy meets EVERY prerequisite specified in its own rule with structured, sourced evidence60 - No unmitigated disconfirming evidence exists61- **`hypothesis_only`**:62 - `methodological_assessment.sample_size_status == "small"` ($N < 100$), OR evidence relies on unverified domain rationale. Candidate strategies are explicitly labeled as hypotheses.63- **`insufficient_evidence`**:64 - `opportunity_analysis.calculation_status != "completed"`, OR required evidence for the candidate strategy is missing.6566## Output Format6768```yaml69decision_readiness:70 decision_under_review: ""71 evidence_present: []72 evidence_missing: []73 what_cannot_be_decided_yet: []74 smallest_next_research_step: ""7576strategy_assessment:77 status: evidence_aligned | hypothesis_only | insufficient_evidence78 primary_rationale: ""7980candidate_strategies:81 - strategy: differentiated | dominant | disruptive | discrete | sustaining82 confidence: high | medium | low83 strategic_fit_rationale: ""84 supporting_outcomes: []85 prerequisite_conditions: []8687excluded_strategies:88 - strategy: differentiated | dominant | disruptive | discrete | sustaining89 reason: ""90 contradicting_evidence: []9192disconfirming_evidence: []93evidence_gaps: []94next_validation_actions: []95```9697## Reference9899Read `references/growth-strategy-matrix-rules.md` before:100- Checking price, cost, and performance evidence schemas101- Verifying discrete strategy prerequisite constraints102- Identifying disconfirming market evidence