prd-v10-chasm-adoption-moore

name	prd-v10-chasm-adoption-moore
description	Assess adoption-lifecycle stage, plan the chasm crossing, and build a beachhead strategy using Geoffrey Moore's Crossing the Chasm framework during PRD v1.0 Market Adoption. Triggers on requests to assess adoption stage, plan beachhead, cross the chasm, scale from early adopters, or when user asks "are we in the chasm?", "crossing the chasm", "beachhead strategy", "Moore", "whole product", "pragmatist buyers", "from early adopters to early majority". Outputs ADO-STAGE-*, ADO-BEACHHEAD-*, ADO-WHOLE-*, ADO-REF-* entries.
context	fork
allowed-tools	["Read","Write","Edit","Glob","Grep","WebSearch"]
execution_modes	{"default":"deep","supports":["quick","standard","deep"]}

Crossing the Chasm (Moore) — the v1.0 Spine

Position in workflow: v0.9 Feedback Loop Setup → v1.0 Crossing the Chasm (Moore) → all v1.0 work

Execution Mode

Default is deep (this is a major strategic decision; quick mode is for hypothesis pre-work only). See .claude/rules/08-skill-execution-modes.md.

Mode	What this skill produces
quick	Stage assessment only (ADO-STAGE-*); beachhead candidate hypothesis
standard	Stage assessment + beachhead segment + top 3 whole-product gaps + reference-account candidate list
deep (default)	Full stage assessment with evidence + sharpened beachhead with in/not-in criteria + complete whole-product gap analysis + reference-account cultivation plan + chasm-crossing risk register

Framework: Moore's Technology Adoption Lifecycle

From Crossing the Chasm (Geoffrey Moore, 1991, updated 2014). The bestselling tech-strategy book of the 1990s, and still the canonical model for understanding why early traction doesn't predict mass adoption.

The lifecycle

Stage	% of market	Buyer mindset	What they buy
Innovators (2.5%)	Tinkerers; technology enthusiasts	Want to try new things; tolerate incomplete products	Vision, technical depth, access
Early Adopters (13.5%)	Visionaries	Want strategic advantage from non-mainstream tech	Bold vision + first-mover ROI
— THE CHASM —	—	—	—
Early Majority (34%)	Pragmatists	Want reliable productivity gains from proven solutions	Whole product + segment-specific references
Late Majority (34%)	Conservatives	Want safe, mature defaults	Market leadership, low risk
Laggards (16%)	Skeptics	Resist change	(Generally not worth targeting)

The chasm

The gap between Early Adopters and Early Majority is the chasm. Most products die here. The reason: visionary buyers (who got you to early traction) actively want the cutting-edge, while pragmatist buyers want to be the second penguin off the iceberg — they need to see peers in their segment succeeding first.

The chasm-crossing playbook

1. Pick a beachhead segment — A single, narrowly-defined sub-segment of the early majority. Not "small businesses." Specific: "freight-forwarding firms with 50-200 employees in the US Pacific Northwest using ERP X."
2. Build the whole product for that beachhead — Pragmatists don't buy your core product; they buy your core + integrations + reference customers + support + training + everything else they need to deploy. Identify and close the gaps.
3. Cultivate references in segment — A reference from outside the beachhead is worthless to a beachhead buyer. Three references inside the beachhead is the unlock.
4. Concentrate, then expand — Don't try to cross the chasm broadly. Win the beachhead, then use it as a reference base to win adjacent segments ("bowling alley" stage).

Consumes

• CFD-* customer evidence (all stages, especially v0.9 post-launch feedback) — Composition of paying customers; stage signal
• PER-* personas (sharpened by v0.9 Positioning) — Beachhead is a sharper variant of an existing PER-
• GTM-* positioning (from v0.9 Positioning) — Best-fit segment is the starting point for beachhead selection; beachhead is usually tighter
• GTM-* offer card (from v0.9 Offer Construction) — Offer must match beachhead expectations (pragmatists need different guarantees than visionaries)
• FEA-* features (from v0.3) — Whole-product gap analysis cross-references current feature set
• KPI-* baseline metrics (from v0.3 + v0.9) — Stage assessment uses retention shape, NPS by segment, conversion rate
• BR-PRICING-* (from v0.3 + v0.9) — Pragmatist buyers expect different pricing/contract terms than visionaries

Produces

• ADO-STAGE-* entries in SoT/SoT.ADOPTION.md — Current adoption-stage assessment with evidence
• ADO-BEACHHEAD-* entries — Beachhead segment definition with strict in/not-in criteria
• ADO-WHOLE-* entries — Whole-product gaps (one per gap, with owner and close date)
• ADO-REF-* entries — Reference-account targets (one per candidate, with consent + placement status)
• CFD-* gaps surfaced — When stage evidence is thin or beachhead selection lacks data, log as research gaps

Execution

Step 1: Assess current adoption stage

Audit current paying-customer composition. For each customer, classify by stage indicators:

Indicator	Innovator/Early Adopter	Early Majority
Sales motion	Direct founder relationship	Asked for demo / pricing / case studies
Setup tolerance	"I'll figure it out"	"Show me the integration with X"
Reference need	None	Asked "who else in my industry uses this?"
Renewal motivation	"We're betting on this"	"It saves us $X/month"
Procurement	Single buyer	Procurement / SOC2 / contracts review

Stage signal:

• Innovators / Early Adopters: >70% of paid customers show visionary indicators
• At the chasm: Mixed composition; new inbound asking pragmatist questions ("references", "integrations", "SOC2"); flat MRR despite growing leads
• Bowling Alley (post-chasm): >50% of new customers in one identifiable segment
• Tornado: Rapid acquisition across multiple segments
• Main Street: Stable growth, focus on expansion and retention

Deliverable: One ADO-STAGE-* entry with evidence, stage classification, and confidence score.

Step 2: Pick the beachhead segment [standard+]

Generate 3–5 candidate beachhead segments. Score each:

Criterion	Question	Weight
Pragmatist density	Is this segment mostly pragmatists (already buying mature solutions)?	High
Whole-product proximity	How close is our current product to the segment's whole-product expectation?	High
Reference accessibility	Can we get 3 references in this segment within 6 months?	High
Compelling reason to buy	Is there an urgent, segment-specific pain we solve uniquely?	High
Adjacency value	If we win this segment, what adjacent segments unlock?	Medium
Competitive intensity	How saturated is this segment with established competitors?	Medium
Market size	Is this segment large enough to support a beachhead?	Low (most beachheads are small; that's fine)

Pick the top-scoring segment. Write strict in-segment and not in-segment criteria.

Deliverable: One ADO-BEACHHEAD-* entry with in/not-in criteria, rationale, target (e.g., "10 closed-won in segment within 6 months"), confidence.

Step 3: Whole-product gap analysis

For the beachhead segment, list everything a pragmatist buyer in that segment expects to receive when they pay you:

• Core product (what you ship)
• Integrations (with their existing stack — specific)
• Compliance (SOC2, HIPAA, ISO — segment-specific)
• Support (response-time SLA, dedicated CSM if appropriate)
• Training / onboarding (videos, docs, certifications)
• References (segment-specific, named, willing to talk)
• Pricing / contract terms (annual contracts, MSAs, custom DPAs)
• Migration / data import
• Professional services (implementation help)
• Roadmap visibility

For each, score: Ship today? / Gap?

For each gap, create an ADO-WHOLE-* entry with severity (blocker / serious / nice-to-have), owner, target close date.

Deliverable: List of ADO-WHOLE-* entries. Blockers must close before sustained beachhead motion.

Step 4: Reference-account cultivation plan [standard+]

Identify 5–10 existing or near-term customers in the beachhead segment that could become public references. For each:

Field	Notes
Customer	Name + segment fit confirmation
Story strength	What outcome can they speak to publicly? (Quantified > qualitative)
Relationship	Who owns the relationship internally?
Consent path	What approval do they need internally to be public?
Target placement	Logo on pricing page / quote on landing / blog case study / on-stage / podcast
Confidence	1–5 of "will become a reference within 90 days"

Deliverable: 5–10 ADO-REF-* entries with cultivation plan.

Step 5: Chasm-crossing risk register [deep only]

For each major chasm risk, log a RISK-* entry:

• Reference-cold risk — Can't get 3 references in beachhead within 6 months
• Whole-product gap risk — Critical gap can't be closed in time
• Beachhead-too-small risk — Segment doesn't sustain the company economically even if won
• Competitor-incumbency risk — Pragmatist defaults are competitor X; switching cost too high
• Internal motion risk — Sales / support / product can't pivot from visionary motion to pragmatist motion

Each risk gets mitigation actions tied to ADO-WHOLE-, ADO-REF-, or BR-* updates.

Deliverable (deep): Risk register with mitigations.

Output Templates

See SoT/SoT.ADOPTION.md for the complete entry templates for ADO-STAGE-, ADO-BEACHHEAD-, ADO-WHOLE-, and ADO-REF-.

Anti-Patterns

Pattern	Signal	Fix
"We're in the chasm" without evidence	Stage assessment based on vibes	Audit actual paying-customer composition; require ADO-STAGE-* confidence ≥ 3/5
Beachhead too broad	"Small businesses" or "B2B SaaS"	Tighten until it disqualifies most buyers; segment of 100–10,000 prospects max
Skipping whole-product gap	"Our product is great; we just need more marketing"	Pragmatists buy whole product, not core product; list every gap
Reference from wrong segment	Touting a visionary customer to a pragmatist buyer	In-segment references only; cross-segment is worthless
Crossing the chasm broadly	"Let's just scale paid ads"	Concentrate on beachhead; broad CAC will be 5× higher and worse-converting
Confusing best-fit with beachhead	Treating Dunford best-fit as the beachhead	Beachhead is tighter than best-fit; usually one sub-segment of the best-fit
Skipping stage assessment	Jumping to "we need to scale" without checking where we are	Step 1 is mandatory; without it, the rest is guesswork

Quality Gates

Before proceeding to other v1.0 work:

• ADO-STAGE-* entry exists with evidence and confidence ≥ 3/5
• If stage is "at the chasm" or beyond: ADO-BEACHHEAD-* defined with strict in/not-in criteria
• At least 3 ADO-WHOLE-* gap entries identified (blockers + serious)
• At least 3 ADO-REF-* candidate accounts (standard+)
• RISK-* entries cover the top chasm risks (deep only)
• Beachhead does not contradict v0.9 Positioning's best-fit (or contradiction is explicit and rationalized)

Downstream Connections

Consumer	What it uses	Example
Continuous Discovery (Torres)	Beachhead segment = discovery interview pool	Weekly interviews drawn from ADO-BEACHHEAD-
Mom Test Interview	Beachhead-segment interview discipline	Validate ADO-STAGE- and ADO-WHOLE- via Mom Test
Case Study Builder	Reference candidates = case study targets	ADO-REF-* graduates to case study
Testimonial Collector	Reference candidates = testimonial targets	ADO-REF-* (lower-effort placement)
v0.9 Re-runs	Beachhead may sharpen Positioning; whole-product gaps may shift Offer	Re-run Dunford with sharper segment
Feedback Loop Setup	Pragmatist-shaped feedback signals chasm crossing	Inbound pattern shift → re-run stage assessment

Detailed References

• Geoffrey Moore, Crossing the Chasm (1991, revised 2014) — canonical source
• Geoffrey Moore, Inside the Tornado (1995) — post-chasm bowling alley / tornado / main street
• Eric Ries, The Lean Startup (incompatible motion before chasm; useful contrast)
• wondelai's crossing-the-chasm skill (wondelai/skills)
• (No bundled references/ — read the book for depth)