mattgierhart/prd-v01-user-value-articulation

User Value Articulation Skill

Transform validated pain points into evidence-anchored value statements.

Workflow Position

Problem Framing → User Value Articulation → v0.2 Market Definition
     (pain)              (value)                  (who cares most)

Consumes

This skill requires prior work from v0.1:

• **CFD-* entries (pain points, from Problem Framing) — Evidence for what problems users face
• PRD.md Why section (problem statement table) — Context for pain-to-value transformation

This skill assumes v0.1 Problem Framing is complete.

Produces

This skill creates/updates:

• CFD-* entries (tagged as value hypotheses) — Transformation of pain points into value statements, with confidence scoring
• MVP scope signal — Identifies which value dimensions will drive MVP feature scope (handed to v0.3)

All CFD value hypothesis entries should include:

• confidence: 2-3/5 (based on evidence tier from users or market)
• Evidence tier (1-5 per value hierarchy)
• Forward target: "Would move to 4/5 if we validate with beta cohort"

Example value hypothesis entry:

CFD-015: Value Hypothesis — Eliminate manual reconciliation workflow

Source Pain: CFD-001 (sales teams waste 5+ hours/week)
Evidence Tier: 2-3 (workaround + quantified cost)
Confidence: 3/5 (source: 3-customer-interviews-jan-2026)
Value Statement: "Reclaim 5 hours/week for strategic pipeline management"
Transformation: [5 hours wasted] → [5 hours available for growth]
Framing Type: Negative Removal (acute quantified loss)
Quantification: 5 hours/week = ~250 hours/year = $12,500 (at $50/hr)
Next Target: "Would move to 4/5 if we observe beta cohort using this feature"

Workflow Overview

1. Receive pain points → Read CFD-IDs from Problem Framing
2. Identify value unit → Time / Money / Risk / Capability
3. Transform pain → value → Apply transformation pattern
4. Anchor to evidence → What proof users want this outcome?
5. Create CFD entry → Tag as value hypothesis with tier

Core Output Template

| Element | Definition | |---------|------------| | Pain (source) | CFD-ID from Problem Framing | | Value Statement | One sentence: what user gains | | Value Unit | Time / Money / Risk / Capability | | Quantification | Number with unit | | Framing Type | Negative Removal / Positive Gain / Capability Unlock / Risk Reduction | | Evidence Tier | 1-5 per hierarchy | | Supporting CFD | New CFD-ID for value hypothesis |

See assets/value-statement.md for copy-paste template.

Pain → Value Transformation

| Pain Pattern | Value Pattern | |--------------|---------------| | "Costs X time" | "Reclaim X time for [higher-value work]" | | "Costs $X" | "Save $X [or redirect to growth]" | | "Risks $X penalty" | "Eliminate $X exposure" | | "Cannot do X" | "Now able to X when [trigger]" | | "Takes X steps" | "Complete in Y steps" | | "Manual process" | "Automatic + verifiable" |

Framing Type Selection

| Type | When to Use | |------|-------------| | Negative Removal | Pain is acute, quantified loss; "hate", "wasting", "losing" | | Positive Gain | Opportunity cost clear; "I wish I could..." | | Capability Unlock | Something impossible, not just hard; "We can't..." | | Risk Reduction | Regulatory/compliance; penalty amounts cited |

Value Evidence Tier Hierarchy

| Tier | Description | Weight | |------|-------------|--------| | 1 | User already paying for this value elsewhere | ✅ Highest | | 2 | User actively trying to achieve this outcome | ✅ Strong | | 3 | User articulates wanting this (unprompted) | ✅ Acceptable | | 4 | User agrees when prompted | ⚠️ Weak | | 5 | Builder assumes value | ❌ Reject |

Gate rule: ≥1 value statement must have Tier 1-3 evidence before v0.2.

CFD Entry Format

CFD-###: Value Hypothesis — [Title]
Type: Value Hypothesis
Source Pain: CFD-###
Evidence Tier: [1-5]

Value Statement: "[User gains X measured in Y]"
Transformation: [Pain] → [Value]
Framing Type: [Type]
Quantification: [Number with unit]

See references/transformation-examples.md for worked examples.

Quality Gates

Pass Checklist

• [ ] Every pain point has corresponding value statement
• [ ] ≥1 value statement has Tier 1-3 evidence
• [ ] All values quantified (time, money, risk, capability)
• [ ] No feature-as-value statements
• [ ] Value unit matches pain unit

Testability Check

• [ ] Can explain value in <10 seconds to prospect?
• [ ] Can test with landing page headline?
• [ ] Value statement contains no features (no "dashboard", "tool")?

Anti-Patterns

| Pattern | Signal | Fix | |---------|--------|-----| | Feature as value | "Dashboard", "tool", "feature" in statement | Rewrite as outcome | | Unmeasurable | "Better", "improved" without number | Add quantity | | Disconnected | Pain unit ≠ value unit | Match units | | Round inflation | "Save 10 hours" no source | Require calculation | | No evidence | No CFD-ID for user desire | Downgrade tier | | Solution creep | HOW (feature) not WHAT (outcome) | Remove implementation |

Bundled Resources

• references/transformation-examples.md — 3 worked examples from real PRDs with step-by-step transformation process.
• references/research-prompts.md — Deep research templates when value evidence is Tier 4-5.
• assets/value-statement.md — Copy-paste template for value tables and CFD entries.

Handoff

Value articulation complete when quality gates pass. Combined with Problem Framing, v0.1 Spark is ready.

Next: v0.2 Market Definition (Who cares MOST about this value? Who pays FIRST?)