name: evidence-weighting
description: Use during Founder mode INTERROGATE / SYNTHESIZE, or whenever evaluating evidence quality. Weight 3 = behavioral (past actions, artifacts shown). Weight 2 = mixed. Weight 1 = stated intent ("I would use"). Confidence scoring caps: single source type → max 3, all stated intent → max 3, ≥4 requires ≥50% behavioral + ≥3 source types, 5 requires behavioral + commitments. Conservative scoring is the default.
Evidence Weighting & Confidence Scoring
Evidence is the currency of Founder mode. Confidence scores are denominated in evidence — and the rubric is brutal because most founders inflate confidence on stated intent and call it validated.
The three evidence weights
| Weight | What qualifies |
|---|
| 3 — Behavioral | Past actions. Artifacts shown. Commitments made. Money spent. Workarounds built. Tools currently used. The interviewee did something. |
| 2 — Mixed | Some past behavior, partially vague. "We've thought about this several times" → maybe behavioral, maybe imagined. "I tried [X] last year" but no detail on outcome. |
| 1 — Stated intent | "I would use it." "Sounds useful." "I'd pay for that." "We're planning to do this." Pure speculation about future behavior. |
The hardest rule: future intent is NEVER weight 3. Even if the interviewee is enthusiastic. Even if they "really mean it." Past behavior > stated intent. Always.
What weight 3 actually looks like
- "I built a Python script three months ago to do this manually. Want to see it?" (artifact + past action)
- "We pay [Vendor] $40K/year for this. The contract is in renewal in March." (money spent + commitment)
- "I switched from [Tool A] to [Tool B] in January because [Tool A] couldn't handle [problem]. Here's the migration log." (past action + reason + artifact)
- "I've been emailing this to my team every Monday for the last 8 months." (workaround + frequency)
What weight 1 actually looks like
- "I would absolutely use that."
- "That sounds like something I'd pay for."
- "We need a tool exactly like this."
- "Yes, this is a major problem in our industry."
- "Everyone I know would use this."
If you're nodding along when you read those, you're seeing why this rule exists. They feel persuasive in the moment. They mean nothing.
Confidence scoring rubric (1–5)
| Score | Label | Evidence required |
|---|
| 1 | Speculation | None — gut feel only |
| 2 | Weak Signal | 1–3 data points, single source type |
| 3 | Moderate Evidence | 4–7 data points, multiple source types, contradictions addressed |
| 4 | Strong Evidence | 8–12 data points, diverse sources, contradictions explained or refuted |
| 5 | Validated | 13+ data points, behavioral evidence, commitments obtained |
Hard caps (non-negotiable)
These caps override the count-based rubric. Even if you have 50 data points:
- Single source type → cap at 3. 50 Reddit comments is still one source type. Diversify.
- Two source types → cap at 4. Reddit + interviews still isn't enough.
- Unaddressed contradictions → cap at 3. If contradictory evidence exists in
evidence.json and you haven't explained it, you don't get above 3.
- All stated intent (no behavioral) → cap at 3. Even with 50 stated-intent quotes, you're at 3 max.
- ≥4 requires ≥50% behavioral evidence AND ≥3 source types. Both, not either.
- 5 requires behavioral evidence AND commitments. "I love this idea" doesn't count. "Here's $5K for a POC" does.
Source-type diversity
Source types include:
- Customer interviews (one segment counts as one source type)
- Community mining (Reddit, G2, HN — collectively one source type unless explicitly diversified)
- Sales calls / outbound conversations
- Behavioral data from existing products
- Competitor analysis
- Expert opinions (low weight regardless)
- Industry analyst reports (lowest weight)
Three source types means you're triangulating. One source type is an echo chamber.
Conservative scoring is the default
When in doubt, score lower. Reasons:
- Asymmetric error cost. Underestimating confidence costs you a few extra interviews. Overestimating costs you a wrong product.
- Confirmation bias is invisible. You can't tell when you're cherry-picking; the synthesizer can.
- Behavioral evidence is rare. Most evidence is stated intent. Calibrate accordingly.
The synthesizer agent is literally instructed to choose the lower score when ambiguous. Trust it.
Trajectory matters more than snapshot
A confidence score of 3 that climbed from 2 last cycle is more valuable than a confidence score of 4 that's been flat for 3 cycles. Stagnation across 2+ cycles → methodology review. Decline across 2+ cycles → consider PIVOT or KILL.
The synthesizer tracks trajectory automatically and alerts on stagnation/decline.
Common mistakes
- Counting one customer's 12 quotes as 12 evidence points. It's one customer. Count once or weight at most 2.
- Treating an enthusiastic interview as weight 3 because the interviewer felt good. Weight is about what the interviewee did, not about how the conversation felt.
- Removing contradicting evidence from
evidence.json because it's "outlier." Never. Contradicting evidence is more valuable than supporting evidence — it's where you'll learn.
- Inflating Pricing confidence because one buyer said "we'd pay $X." Stated intent on pricing is the most-inflated number in early-stage thinking. Cap at 3 unless you have actual purchase orders.
- Skipping Van Westendorp because "we know our pricing." You don't. Run it.
How the synthesizer enforces this
The thesis-synthesizer refuses to advance unsupported claims and applies the hard caps automatically. It also:
- Counts behavioral vs stated-intent evidence per section
- Counts source-type diversity per section
- Flags UNSUPPORTED / WEAK / CONTESTED claims
- Logs every confidence change with evidence IDs in the Evolution Log
- Refuses to increase a score without new evidence
Conservative scoring is enforced by the agent, not just by guidance.
