Distinguish Verified Evidence From Core Assumptions
The founder categorises all diagnostic assertions into verified factual evidence or unvalidated personal assumptions. They critically evaluate the strength of proof backing their claimed capabilities, market insights, and available resources.
Completing this action purges optimistic bias from the diagnostic evaluation by highlighting unverified claims. It protects the parent task's integrity by ensuring progression decisions rest purely on robust evidence.
A two-column evidence audit table categorising every key claim as either Verified Evidence or Unvalidated Assumption. Each verified claim must cite verifiable proof, such as third-party references, bank statements, or historical delivery records.
Five questions an expert would ask when reviewing your output
Use these to challenge assumptions, pressure-test your logic, and check the quality of this action's output in the context of the parent task and wider venture development.
- 1
What direct evidence validates your assumption that your domain knowledge gives you a distinct unfair advantage?
- 2
Why have you categorised your weekly availability as verified evidence when it relies on external promises?
- 3
How much of your claimed industry network is based on active relationships rather than cold contact lists?
- 4
What specific operational risk arises if your primary assumption regarding personal financial runway turns out to be wrong?
- 5
How will you convert your highest-risk personal assumptions into verified facts before committing capital?