majiayu000 Problem Framing Skill
Transform market signals into evidence-anchored problem statements.
Workflow Overview
- Assess gaps → Identify what evidence is missing
- Anchor evidence → Create CFD-IDs for each pain point
- Extract dimensions → Pull multiple problems from each source
- Quantify costs → Add time/money/risk numbers
- Draft statement → Populate the problem table
Core Output Template
Populate this table for every problem statement:
| Element | Definition | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Who is hurting? | Specific, findable, countable persona | Segment size |
| What pain exists? | Observable behavior or workflow friction | CFD-ID |
| Cost of problem | Time, money, or opportunity lost | Quantified |
| Why now? | Market trigger creating urgency | Trend/event |
| What's impossible? | Opportunity cost—what can't they do | User quote |
See assets/problem-statement.md for copy-paste template.
Step 1: Gap Assessment
Before drafting, create this status table:
| Element | Status | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Who is hurting? | ⚠️ Hypothesis / ✅ Validated / ❌ Missing | |
| What pain exists? | ⚠️ / ✅ / ❌ | |
| Cost of problem | ⚠️ / ✅ / ❌ | |
| Why now? | ⚠️ / ✅ / ❌ | |
| What's impossible? | ⚠️ / ✅ / ❌ |
Gate: Require ≥2 elements ✅ Validated before drafting. If ≥3 elements ❌ Missing, run deep research first. See references/research-prompts.md for research templates.
Step 2: Evidence Anchoring
Create CFD entries for each pain point:
CFD-###
Source: [Platform/Person]
Tier: [1-5]
Quote: "[Verbatim]"
Dimensions: [List problems extracted]
Evidence Tier Hierarchy:
- Tier 1: Buying behavior (invoices, subscriptions, job budgets)
- Tier 2: Active workarounds (spreadsheets, hired help)
- Tier 3: Complaints with cost ("costs me X hours")
- Tier 4: General complaints ("this is annoying")
- Tier 5: Speculation — REJECT
Step 3: Pain Dimension Extraction
Extract multiple problems from each source. One quote often contains 3-4 distinct pain dimensions.
Example: "USB sticks removed for every update, no scheduling, screens don't communicate, priced for 100+ displays" → Sneakernet workflow, No dynamic scheduling, No centralization, Price mismatch
Step 4: Cost Quantification
Every problem needs a number:
| Type | Calculation |
|---|---|
| Time | Hours/week × hourly rate |
| Money | Current spend on workaround |
| Opportunity | Revenue/outcomes missed |
| Risk | Penalty × probability |
Step 5: Draft Problem Statement
Use the core output template. Reference CFD-IDs for every claim.
See references/examples.md for good/bad examples with explanations.
Quality Gates
Pass Checklist
- ≥1 Tier 1-2 evidence item
- Cost quantified (time, money, or risk)
- "Who" specific enough to build prospect list
- "Why now" has at least Tier 3 hypothesis
Testability Check
- Can find 10 people with this problem in 48 hours?
- Can observe the pain behavior?
- Can quantify cost without leading questions?
Anti-Patterns
| Pattern | Example | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Vague "Who" | "Small businesses" | → "SMBs with 1-10 screens" |
| Feature-as-problem | "Need a dashboard" | → "Can't see status" |
| Solution creep | "MVP must solve X" | → Stay on problem (v0.4) |
| Missing cost | "This is annoying" | → "Costs X hrs/week" |
| Speculation | "Users might want" | → Find evidence or reject |
Bundled Resources
references/research-prompts.md— Deep research templates by gap type. Use when gap assessment shows ≥3 missing elements.references/examples.md— Good/bad problem statement examples with explanations.assets/problem-statement.md— Copy-paste template for problem tables and CFD entries.
Handoff
Problem statement complete when quality gates pass. Next: v0.2 Market Definition (segments, sizing, ICP).