stg-designing-gtm

name	stg-designing-gtm
description	Designs the complete GTM plan for the hypothesis register. Sequences channels by phase with gate criteria, builds messaging framework from value proposition, sets target KPIs per phase, derives operational constraints from all hypotheses, and defines success/kill criteria. Use when constructing register section 7 (GTM Plan) during BUILD.
serves	strategist
domain	go-to-market-strategy
affects	gtm-plan-proposal
depends-on	["stg-segmenting-customers (segment access paths)","stg-designing-channels (channel strategy, per-channel CAC)","stg-designing-pricing (ACV range, pricing tiers)","stg-designing-solutions (growth architecture, growth loops)"]
produces	GTM Plan (Proposed) section for hypothesis register

GTM Plan Design

Design the complete go-to-market plan for the hypothesis register. Translate channel strategy, value proposition, growth architecture, and segment data into a phased execution plan with gates, KPIs, messaging, constraints, and kill criteria.

Procedure

Step 1: Load Inputs [S]

Read upstream outputs:

• Value Proposition (register section 4): claim, JTBD dimensions, differentiator, alternative, unique capability, clause validation status.
• Channel Strategy from Unit Economics (register section 3): ranked channel list with per-channel CAC, investment splits, phase sequencing, channel-economics coherence result.
• Growth Architecture (register section 5): PLG / Network / Sales-Led / Hybrid, required conditions, rationale.
• Segment Hypothesis (register section 2): primary segment, trigger event, budget owner, where they gather, observable characteristics, access paths.
• Pricing from Unit Economics (register section 3): ACV range, tier structure, upgrade triggers.
• Mode (VENTURE / BOOTSTRAP / HYBRID) from governor.

Assemble input summary with sources.

Gate: inputs_loaded: bool -- channel strategy, growth architecture, value proposition, and segment hypothesis all available.

• Pass: Step 2.
• Fail: If channel strategy missing, cannot design GTM -- stg-designing-channels must run first. If growth architecture missing, infer from ACV and buyer type with reduced confidence and flag.

Step 2: Select GTM Architecture [R]

Match growth architecture to GTM execution pattern. The architecture constrains which GTM motions are viable. Getting this wrong misallocates every downstream dollar and hire.

Growth Architecture	GTM Pattern	Primary Motion	Key Metric
PLG	Self-serve acquisition + expansion	Signup -> Activation -> Conversion -> Expansion	Activation rate (% reaching aha moment)
Network/Viral	Seed + grow network	Recruit constrained side -> density -> expansion	K-factor and cycle time
Sales-Led	Outbound + inbound pipeline	Pipeline generation -> qualification -> close	Pipeline-to-close rate
Hybrid	PLG bottom-up + sales expansion	Self-serve < $5K, sales-assist $5K-$50K, enterprise > $50K	PQL-to-close rate
Marketplace	Supply-side recruitment + demand activation	Curate supply -> create demand -> liquidity	Liquidity rate (% listings transacting)

Architecture-GTM mismatches to check:

Mismatch	Signal
PLG with ACV > $10K	High-ACV buyers expect demos, security reviews, procurement
Sales-led with ACV < $2K	A $2K deal cannot support $15K+ fully-loaded CAC
Viral mechanics on non-collaborative tool	No natural invitation reason; incentives compensate but K stays < 0.3
Enterprise sales without customer success	Churn kills LTV; need > 90% retention to justify CAC

Gate: architecture_matched: bool -- one GTM pattern selected, no architecture-GTM mismatch detected.

• Pass: Step 3.
• Fail: If mismatch detected, document the mismatch with specific numbers (ACV vs CAC threshold) and flag as a finding. Proceed with the closest viable pattern and note the risk.

Step 3: Design Phase-Gated Channel Sequence [K-grounded]

Grounded in: channel strategy from Step 1, GTM pattern from Step 2, mode (VENTURE/BOOTSTRAP/HYBRID).

Design three phases. Each phase has: channels, budget allocation, exit gate to next phase, and estimated timeline.

Phase 1: Validation (Pre-PMF)

Objective: find working acquisition with minimal spend. Learn, do not scale.

Select 1-2 channels maximum from channel strategy. Criteria:

• Lowest absolute cost to test (not lowest CAC -- lowest total spend to learn)
• Fastest feedback loop (paid > content, outbound > inbound for learning speed)
• Strongest founder-channel fit

Phase 1 channel selection by GTM pattern:

GTM Pattern	Foundation Channel 1	Foundation Channel 2
PLG	Product-led viral + content SEO	Community / dev relations
Sales-Led	Founder-led outbound (first 10-20 deals)	Inbound content for demo pipeline
Network	Manual supply-side recruitment	Community seeding
Hybrid	Content + PLG signup	Founder-led sales on expansion deals
Marketplace	Manual supply curation	Demand seeding in one geography/vertical

Budget allocation: 70-80% to foundation channel, 20-30% to secondary.

Exit gate to Phase 2 (ALL must hold):

• Channel produces repeatable acquisition (not one-off spikes)
• CAC is measurable and within 2x of target blended CAC
• Conversion funnel has > 100 data points at each stage
• Time to convert is understood with specific range

Phase 2: Traction (Post-PMF)

Objective: scale working channels, add one adjacent channel.

Add channels that:

• Require the volume/data Phase 1 produced (paid needs conversion data)
• Have lower marginal CAC at scale than Phase 1 channels
• Diversify acquisition risk (must not be > 70% from one channel)

Phase 2 additions by GTM pattern:

GTM Pattern	Scale Addition	Why Now
PLG	Paid search/social, partnerships	Have conversion data to optimize paid
Sales-Led	SDR team, events, channel partners	Have playbook from founder-led sales
Network	Paid acquisition for demand side	Supply side seeded, need demand
Hybrid	Inside sales team, paid	PLG provides PQL data for sales targeting
Marketplace	Paid demand acquisition, content	Supply curated, need demand volume

Budget: 50-60% scale channel, 20-30% foundation (maintenance), 10-20% experimental.

Exit gate to Phase 3 (ALL must hold):

• At least 2 channels producing consistent acquisition
• No single channel > 70% of total acquisition
• Blended CAC within target range
• Net revenue retention measurable

Phase 3: Scale (Optimization)

Objective: maximize efficiency, add programmatic channels.

• Compounding channels mature (content/SEO at 18-24 months)
• Retargeting/remarketing across channels
• International expansion if applicable
• Analyst/PR for brand leverage

Budget: 40-50% primary, 20-30% secondary, 10-20% compounding, 10% experimental.

For each phase, state: channels active, budget split (must sum to 100%), timeline estimate, and exit gate criteria.

Gate: sequence_designed: bool -- three phases with channels, budgets summing to 100%, exit gates with specific measurable criteria.

• Pass: Step 4.
• Fail: If phases lack exit gates, add specific measurable criteria. If budgets do not sum to 100%, rebalance.

Step 4: Define Target KPIs per Phase [R]

For each phase, define 3-5 KPIs. KPIs must be specific, measurable, and tied to the GTM pattern.

KPI selection by GTM pattern and phase:

PLG KPIs:

Phase	KPI	Benchmark
Validation	Signup-to-activation rate	Target: 20-40% (best: 60%+)
Validation	Time-to-value	< 5 min consumer, < 30 min SMB, < 1 day team
Traction	Free-to-paid conversion (freemium)	Target: 2-5% (best: 7-10%)
Traction	Trial-to-paid conversion (trial)	Target: 10-25% (best: 40%+)
Scale	Net revenue retention	Target: > 100%
Scale	Viral coefficient (if applicable)	K > 0.3 to matter, > 1.0 for true virality

Sales-Led KPIs:

Phase	KPI	Benchmark
Validation	Outbound response rate	Problem-first: 8-15%; pitch-first: 1-3%
Validation	Founder close rate	Track per segment and deal size
Traction	AE quota attainment	Healthy: 55-65% hitting quota
Traction	Sales cycle length	30-90 days mid-market, 90-365 enterprise
Scale	SDR-sourced close rate	10-20%
Scale	Customer expansion revenue	20-40% of new revenue by year 2

Hybrid KPIs:

Phase	KPI	Benchmark
Validation	Activation rate (self-serve)	20-40%
Validation	PQL identification rate	5%+ of self-serve users show PQL signals
Traction	PQL-to-close rate	Target: 15-30% (if < 10%, PQL definition wrong)
Traction	Self-serve to team expansion	> 5% of self-serve expand to team tier
Scale	Blended CAC trend	Stable or declining QoQ

Network/Marketplace KPIs:

Phase	KPI	Benchmark
Validation	Supply-side acquisition	Manual recruitment targets
Validation	Liquidity rate (marketplace)	> 30% to be a marketplace, not a listing site
Traction	Density in target geography/niche	30-50% of local/niche market
Traction	K-factor (network)	> 0.5 to matter; even 0.3 compounds if cycle < 3 days
Scale	Organic K-factor	0.15-0.4 without incentive

Flag any KPI where the benchmark requires ground-truth data (T3) to establish a realistic target.

Gate: kpis_defined: bool -- 3-5 KPIs per phase, each with specific benchmark and measurement method.

• Pass: Step 5.
• Fail: Replace vanity metrics (pageviews, signups without activation) with conversion or retention metrics.

Step 5: Build Messaging Framework [K-grounded]

Grounded in: value proposition (section 4), segment hypothesis (section 2), competitive analysis.

Translate the value proposition into channel-adapted messaging across buyer awareness levels.

5a. Decompose the value proposition into messaging components:

From the VP claim, extract:

• Headline: [Differentiator] for [Target] -- short, specific, no jargon
• Subhead: Expand the problem and hint at mechanism
• Proof points: 3 maximum. Each specific (numbers, names, timeframes)
• CTA per awareness level:

Awareness Level	Buyer State	Message Lead	CTA
Unaware	Does not know they have the problem	Cost of status quo	"Learn more"
Problem-aware	Knows the problem, not solutions	Problem label	"See how"
Solution-aware	Evaluating solutions	Differentiation	"Try free" / "See demo"
Product-aware	Knows product, has not converted	Proof and risk reversal	"Start now"
Most aware	Ready to buy	Offer	"Get started" / "Talk to sales"

5b. Adapt messaging per channel:

Channel Type	Messaging Rule
SEO/Content	Write for the problem keyword, not the product category. Problem-aware search volume is typically 3-10x category volume.
Paid Search	Bid on high-intent terms only. "[Alternative to competitor]" converts 3-5x vs category terms.
Outbound	First message: problem only, no pitch. 5-7 touches over 3-4 weeks.
Paid Social	Pattern interrupt required. Lead with surprising data or contrarian take. UGC-style video outperforms polished 1.5-2x.
Community	Zero marketing language. 4-8 weeks of pure contribution before any product mention.

5c. State what is testable vs assumed:

Every messaging claim inherits the tier of the hypothesis it derives from. If the VP clause is T2, the messaging derived from it is T2. Flag T3-dependent messaging explicitly.

Gate: messaging_built: bool -- headline, subhead, proof points, awareness-level CTAs, and per-channel adaptations all produced. VP clause tracing documented.

• Pass: Step 6.
• Fail: If messaging cannot trace to VP claims, the VP is too vague for GTM. Flag as a dependency issue.

Step 6: Derive Operational Constraints [S]

Extract constraints that limit GTM execution from each hypothesis:

Source	Constraint Type	Example
Problem hypothesis	Urgency/timing	Seasonal problem = launch window constraint
Segment hypothesis	Access limitations	Segment does not use LinkedIn = outbound via LinkedIn nonviable
Unit Economics	Budget ceiling	Bootstrap mode = < $50K total Phase 1 spend
Unit Economics	CAC ceiling	Blended CAC must stay below 1/3 first-year ACV
Unit Economics	Payback requirement	Bootstrap: < 6 months; Venture: < 18 months
Growth Architecture	Motion constraint	PLG requires activation < 1 day; sales-led requires playbook before SDR hire
Pricing	Deal size constraint	ACV < $2K eliminates sales-assisted channels

Compile constraint list with source hypothesis and blast radius (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW) if violated.

Gate: constraints_derived: bool -- at least one constraint from each upstream hypothesis documented with blast radius.

• Pass: Step 7.
• Fail: If a hypothesis provides no constraints, re-read it. Every hypothesis constrains GTM somehow.

Step 7: Define Success and Kill Criteria per Phase [R]

For each phase, define:

Success criteria (move to next phase):

• The exit gate from Step 3 restated as measurable outcomes
• Minimum data thresholds (not just "positive results" -- specific conversion rates, specific pipeline numbers, specific CAC ranges)

Kill criteria (stop or pivot):

Signal	Timeframe	Action
Phase 1: Zero repeatable acquisition after 90 days with adequate effort	90 days	Reassess channel-segment fit. If problem hypothesis holds, test different channels. If no channel works, problem hypothesis may be wrong.
Phase 1: CAC > 3x target after optimization	120 days	Channel economics nonviable at this ACV. Either raise ACV or find cheaper channels.
Phase 2: Blended CAC rising > 20% QoQ	2 consecutive quarters	Market saturating or targeting exhausted. Diversify or narrow.
Phase 2: Single channel > 70% of acquisition	Any point	Fragile. Platform change can halve acquisition overnight. Accelerate diversification.
Phase 3: Net revenue retention < 100%	Any point	Churn exceeds expansion. Product or CS problem, not GTM.

Kill criteria must be specific and observable. "Not working" is not a kill criterion. "< 50% of target pipeline after 90-day test with $X budget" is a kill criterion.

Gate: criteria_defined: bool -- every phase has success criteria with specific numbers and kill criteria with timeframes and actions.

• Pass: Step 8.
• Fail: Replace qualitative criteria ("good traction") with quantitative thresholds.

Step 8: Apply Diagnostic Framework [R]

Before writing, run the diagnostic sequence against the designed plan to catch structural issues:

1. Is there demand? (Does the segment search for this problem? Do
   they respond to outbound?)
   -> If NO from research: flag as T3 gap. Problem hypothesis may need
      revisiting.

2. Can the funnel convert? (Is the messaging-market fit plausible given
   awareness-level mapping?)
   -> If messaging depends on T3 claims: flag messaging as hypothesis,
      not plan.

3. Can users activate? (Is time-to-value compatible with the growth
   architecture?)
   -> If PLG and time-to-value > 1 day: flag activation risk.

4. Is CAC sustainable? (Does the channel mix produce blended CAC within
   constraints?)
   -> If blended CAC > 1/3 first-year ACV: flag economics risk.

5. Is the plan survivable? (Can the team execute Phase 1 channels given
   founder-channel fit?)
   -> If required channels do not match team capabilities: flag
      execution risk.

Document findings from this diagnostic as GTM risks in the plan.

Gate: diagnostic_passed: bool -- all 5 diagnostic checks run, findings documented.

• Pass: Step 9.
• Fail: Findings are information, not blockers. Document and proceed. Structural issues (demand nonexistent, CAC impossible) should be flagged prominently but do not prevent writing the plan.

Step 9: Write GTM Plan Section [S]

Write register section 7 matching the register format:

## 7. GTM Plan (Proposed)

**Support State:** PROPOSED
**Last Updated:** {date}

### GTM Architecture
- Pattern: {PLG / Sales-Led / Network / Hybrid / Marketplace}
- Rationale: {why this pattern for this architecture and ACV}

### Channel Sequence

**Phase 1: Validation ({timeline})**
- Channels: {channel 1 (budget %), channel 2 (budget %)}
- Total budget: {estimate}
- Target KPIs: {3-5 specific KPIs with benchmarks}
- Exit gate: {specific measurable criteria}
- Kill criteria: {specific triggers with timeframes}

**Phase 2: Traction ({timeline})**
- Channels: {existing + additions (budget %)}
- Target KPIs: {3-5 specific KPIs with benchmarks}
- Exit gate: {specific measurable criteria}
- Kill criteria: {specific triggers with timeframes}

**Phase 3: Scale ({timeline})**
- Channels: {full mix (budget %)}
- Target KPIs: {3-5 specific KPIs with benchmarks}
- Kill criteria: {specific triggers with timeframes}

### Messaging Framework
- Headline: {from VP}
- Subhead: {problem expansion}
- Proof points: {3 max, specific}
- Awareness-level CTAs: {table}
- Channel adaptations: {per active channel}

### Operational Constraints
{constraint list with source hypothesis and blast radius}

### GTM Risks
{diagnostic findings from Step 8}

### Constraints from Hypotheses
- From Problem: {constraint}
- From Segment: {constraint}
- From Unit Economics: {constraint}
- From Growth Architecture: {constraint}

Set support state to PROPOSED. Gap Definer validates or blocks.

Gate: section_written: bool -- all subsections populated, support state = PROPOSED, every KPI has a benchmark, every phase has exit/kill criteria with specific numbers.

• Pass: Done.
• Fail: Fix missing subsections. Every field must be populated.

Quality Criteria

• Growth architecture consumed from section 5 (not re-derived)
• Channel strategy consumed from section 3 (not re-derived)
• Value proposition consumed from section 4 (not re-derived)
• Messaging traces to VP claims with tier inheritance
• Phase gates have specific measurable criteria (not qualitative)
• KPIs include benchmarks from domain knowledge (not invented)
• Kill criteria have timeframes and specific actions
• Operational constraints cite source hypothesis
• Budget splits sum to 100% per phase
• No channel-architecture mismatch present without flagged risk
• Diagnostic framework run and findings documented
• All CAC benchmarks and conversion benchmarks cite domain basis

Failure Modes

Mode	Signal	Recovery
Generic messaging	"Great solution for modern teams"	Trace every message clause to a specific VP claim and segment characteristic
Vanity KPIs	Pageviews, impressions, signups-without-activation	Replace with conversion, retention, or revenue metrics with benchmarks
Missing phase gates	"Move to Phase 2 when ready"	Define specific measurable exit criteria with thresholds
Architecture-GTM mismatch	PLG plan for $50K ACV product	Check ACV against GTM pattern constraints; flag if mismatched
CAC denial	"$0 CAC" or no founder time accounting	Every channel has a real cost including founder time at opportunity cost
All channels simultaneously	No phasing, no prioritization	Phase 1 must focus on 1-2 channels. Concentration before diversification.
Messaging without tier tracing	Confident messaging from T2/T3 claims	Every message inherits the tier of its source hypothesis clause
Kill criteria too vague	"Revisit if not working"	Specific: "< X% conversion after Y days with $Z spend"
Scope creep into execution	Content calendars, outreach templates, campaign designs	This skill designs the GTM plan. Execution is downstream.
Premature scaling assumption	Phase 2 assumes working channel before Phase 1 validates	Each phase depends on prior phase exit gate being met

Boundaries

In scope: GTM architecture selection, phase-gated channel sequencing, target KPIs with benchmarks, messaging framework derived from VP, operational constraint derivation, success/kill criteria per phase, diagnostic check.

Out of scope: Channel identification and per-channel CAC estimation (stg-designing-channels), pricing design and tier architecture (stg-designing-pricing), LTV/CAC/payback calculation and cost structure (stg-calculating-economics), growth architecture selection and rationale (stg-designing-solutions), competitive landscape mapping (stg-analyzing-competition), GTM execution: content production, outreach cadences, campaign management, nurture flows (downstream execution systems).