prd-v01-problem-framing

# Problem Framing Skill

Transform market signals into evidence-anchored problem statements.

## Consumes

This skill assumes you have **zero prior research**. It is the starting point.

- No prior CFD- entries needed
- No prior PR D required
- Assumes: Founder/PM has observed market signals but hasn't validated them

## Produces

This skill creates/updates:

- **CFD-\* entries** (customer feedback) — 1-5 per problem dimension, with confidence scoring (see PRINCIPLES.md)
- **PRD.md Why section** — Evidence-anchored problem statement table
- **MVP scope signal** — Identifies which problem dimensions will drive MVP feature scope (handed to v0.3)

All CFD- entries should include:
- `confidence: 1-3/5` (pre-product research, no usage data)
- Evidence source (competitive analysis, interviews, workarounds, etc.)
- Forward target: "Would move to 4/5 if we observe 10+ paying customers with this pain"

## Workflow Overview

1. **Assess gaps** → Identify what evidence is missing before you can confidently state a problem
2. **Anchor evidence** → Create CFD- entries for each pain point dimension with confidence scoring
3. **Extract dimensions** → Pull multiple distinct problems from each source
4. **Quantify costs** → Add time/money/risk numbers to make pain concrete
5. **Draft statement** → Populate the problem table, tied to CFD- entries

## 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 with confidence scoring:

```
CFD-###: [Pain Point Name]
Source: [Where this evidence came from]
Tier: [1-5 evidence quality]
Confidence: [1-5]/5 (pre-product research)
Quote: "[Verbatim from source]"
Dimensions: [List distinct problems extracted from this source]
Next Target: "Would move to 3/5 if we interview X more customers"
```

**Evidence Tier Hierarchy** (strength of observation):
- **Tier 1**: Buying behavior (invoices, subscriptions, job budgets) — users spend money to solve this
- **Tier 2**: Active workarounds (spreadsheets, hired help, manual processes) — users invest labor
- **Tier 3**: Complaints with cost ("costs me X hours/week") — users quantify the pain
- **Tier 4**: General complaints ("this is annoying") — users acknowledge it but haven't quantified
- **Tier 5**: Speculation — **REJECT** ("users probably want...")

**Confidence Scoring** (pre-product, see PRINCIPLES.md):
- **1/5**: PM assumption or single data point
- **2/5**: Secondary research (competitive analysis, market reports)
- **3/5**: Pre-product interviews (3-5 user conversations)
- **4/5**: Beta cohort validation (observed behavior, not questions)
- **5/5**: Production usage (reserved for post-launch)

**Example entry with confidence**:
```
CFD-001: Sales teams waste 5+ hours/week on spreadsheet workflow

Source: 3 customer interviews (SaaS sales director, SMB sales rep, enterprise sales manager)
Tier: 2-3 (workaround + cost quantification)
Confidence: 3/5 (source: 3-customer-interviews-jan-2026)
Quote: "I spend 5 hours every Friday reconciling our pipeline with the actual numbers in our CRM"
Dimensions:
  - Manual data reconciliation between systems (workaround)
  - Inventory work (scheduling impact)
  - Single source of truth fragmentation (data quality risk)
Next Target: "Would move to 4/5 if we validate with 5 more sales leaders or observe workflows directly"
```

## 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.m