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:
```markdown
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?)