Separate Technical Evidence From Founder Assumptions
The founder scrutinises every technical debt claim, distinguishing hard evidence like automated static analysis reports and error logs from unverified developer opinions. They explicitly list all unproven assumptions regarding system performance, rewrite costs, and code stability.
Completing this action validates the underlying reliability of the technical assessment by stripping away optimistic bias and unverified assertions. It ensures the venture's technology roadmap is built upon empirical diagnostics rather than misplaced confidence.
The founder must deliver a two-column audit document contrasting empirical technical evidence against unverified assumptions. Every high-risk rating must be backed by tangible logs, performance test results, or third-party code review findings.
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 hard log data or automated analysis tools back up your claim that the current database architecture is stable?
- 2
Why are you treating developer estimates for code refactoring as factual evidence rather than speculative assumptions?
- 3
Which critical performance assumptions remain completely unverified by actual load testing or stress simulation?
- 4
How did you ensure that senior team members did not downplay technical debt in areas they personally authored?
- 5
What specific evidence proves that third-party library deprecations will not break core functionality in the next quarter?