mancitrus/system-prompts-and-models-of-ai-tools
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/x1xhlol/system-prompts-and-models-of-ai-tools.git synced 2026-06-18 15:29:36 +00:00
Code Issues Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
a369e503b3
system-prompts-and-models-o.../salesflow-saas/docs/customer_learnings/defensibility_scorecard.md
Claude aa024703fc
Business Viability Kit: discovery-phase operating artifacts 
Saves the DEALIX_BUSINESS_VIABILITY_KIT.md (Weeks 4-12 customer discovery
operating manual) and produces only the operational artifacts it explicitly
names. Per the kit's Appendix C: no new plan documents, no Wave A-E work,
no features without customer pull.

Added:
  Customer Viability operating artifacts
    - docs/customer_learnings/hypotheses.yaml - 12 hypotheses tracked
      to SUPPORTED/FALSIFIED/AMBIGUOUS with interview-log citations
    - docs/customer_learnings/interviews/_template_ar.md - 45-min Arabic
      discovery script + post-call log schema
    - docs/customer_learnings/interviews/_template_en.md - English version
    - docs/customer_learnings/founder_dashboard.md - weekly Monday printable
      dashboard (kit Sec 8)
    - docs/customer_learnings/pricing_discovery.md - Van Westendorp PSM +
      value-based sanity check + A/B model matrix
    - docs/customer_learnings/unit_economics.md - per-customer economics,
      LTV/CAC ratios, 12-month scenario template
    - docs/customer_learnings/defensibility_scorecard.md - 5 moats x 2
      questions, quarterly re-measurement

  Registry updates
    - docs/registry/TRUTH.yaml customer_validation section: hypothesis
      counters + discovery-interview counter + kit reference
    - docs/customer_learnings/README.md updated to link new artifacts

Gates after change:
  architecture_brief.py       40/40
  release_readiness_matrix  102/102  (added 8 new BVK artifact checks)
  v005_truth_registry_audit   19/19 SUPPORTED

Agent scope going forward per kit Appendix C: customer-surfaced P0 defects,
UX polish appearing in 2+ interviews, perf issues on staging, pentest
remediations. No new plans. No Wave tasks.
2026-04-17 11:26:32 +00:00

2.9 KiB
Raw Blame History

Dealix — Strategic Defensibility Scorecard

First measurement at Week 12. Re-measured every quarter. Each question: 0–2 points. Max 20. Honest scoring only — be more generous with your competitors than yourself.

Scoring rubric (per question)

  • 0 — No evidence we have this
  • 1 — Directional evidence, not yet strong
  • 2 — Strong evidence (data, customer language, wins)

1. Data Moat

Q1.1 — Do we have data competitors cannot access (e.g. Arabic formal-register corpus, PDPL evidence patterns, board-pack styles)? Score: __ / 2 — evidence:

Q1.2 — Does every customer interaction make the product measurably better for the next customer? Score: __ / 2 — evidence:

Subtotal: __ / 4

2. Distribution Moat

Q2.1 — Are customers actively referring peers within 6 months of sign-up (H12 check)? Score: __ / 2 — evidence:

Q2.2 — Do we have 2+ acquisition channels that competitors cannot easily copy (e.g. KSA CFO community, Arabic enterprise content depth, government procurement whitelist)? Score: __ / 2 — evidence:

Subtotal: __ / 4

3. Technical Moat

Q3.1 — Is there a capability that would take a competitor ≥ 6 months to replicate (durable execution + evidence graph + RLS + OTel compliance correlation stack)? Score: __ / 2 — evidence:

Q3.2 — Is Arabic-first quality measurably better than any alternative (blind customer test, eval suite results, documented examples)? Score: __ / 2 — evidence:

Subtotal: __ / 4

4. Brand Moat

Q4.1 — If a customer switches away, is there emotional / identity loss ("this is our board room tool")? Score: __ / 2 — evidence:

Q4.2 — Would customers defend Dealix unprompted in public forums or peer conversations? Score: __ / 2 — evidence:

Subtotal: __ / 4

5. Switching-Cost Moat

Q5.1 — Is there data / workflow / integration lock-in that is painful to migrate out of? Score: __ / 2 — evidence:

Q5.2 — Do users build Dealix-specific expertise (advanced admins, workflow owners) that would be lost on churn? Score: __ / 2 — evidence:

Subtotal: __ / 4

Final Score

Total: __ / 20

Interpretation

Score Meaning
16–20 Category-defining trajectory. Compound.
10–15 Strong but not yet defensible. Invest in weakest moat.
5–9 Commoditizable. Rethink positioning or narrow scope.
0–4 No moat. Change fundamentals, or the business will be out-executed.

Improvement plan (top 1 action per weakest moat)

  • Weakest moat identified:
  • Single action for next quarter:
  • Evidence we will accept as success:

History

Quarter Score Weakest moat Top action taken
Q1 2026 (W12) __ __ __
Q2 2026 __ __ __
Q3 2026 __ __ __
Q4 2026 __ __ __