Adapted for SaaS. Each one has a satisfying answer and a set of tells that mean ask again.
Q1, demand reality. "What's the strongest evidence you have that someone would be genuinely upset if this disappeared tomorrow?"
Satisfying: a behavior that cost someone something. They paid, they rebuilt it in a spreadsheet themselves, they asked twice unprompted, they handed over their data.
Ask again on: waitlist signups, survey results, "everyone I talk to loves it," investor interest, the founder's own conviction. Interest is not demand.
Q2, status quo. "What are they doing about this right now, even badly, and what does the workaround cost them in hours or dollars?"
Satisfying: a named tool, a manual process with a time cost, a person whose job is partly this.
Ask again on: "nothing, that's the whole opportunity." A problem nobody works around is usually a problem nobody has. Occasionally that's wrong, and then the burden is on them to explain why the pain stays invisible.
Q3, desperate specificity. "Name the actual person. Title, what gets them promoted, what gets them fired."
Satisfying: a real title with real incentives, ideally a human they've actually spoken to.
Ask again on: a segment rather than a person ("mid-market ops teams"), a persona invented rather than met, or three different buyers at once.
Q4, buyer and budget. "Who controls the money for this, and have they said a number out loud?"
Satisfying: a named budget owner, an existing line item this displaces, a number the buyer said first.
Ask again on: only ever having talked to the user when the buyer is someone else; "we'll figure out pricing later"; a number the founder invented. In B2B the person who loves the tool routinely can't authorize the purchase, and that gap kills more deals than weak demand does.
Q5, narrowest wedge. "What's the smallest version of this someone pays real money for this week, not after the platform exists?"
Satisfying: one workflow, one screen, shippable in days, with someone specific who'd buy it.
Ask again on: an answer that needs the platform, the integrations, or a user base before it's worth anything.
Q6, observation and surprise. "Have you watched someone use this without helping them, and what surprised you?"
Satisfying: a specific moment where reality diverged from what they expected.
Ask again on: "they loved it," "nothing surprised me," or having only ever demoed it themselves. No surprise means no observation.
Q7, future-fit. "If the world looks different in three years, with the models getting cheap and the incumbent shipping the obvious version, does this get more essential or less?"
Satisfying: a reason the need grows, plus an answer to "why doesn't the incumbent just add this?"
Ask again on: a tailwind named without a mechanism ("AI is huge"). A tailwind that reaches everyone reaches no one.
针对SaaS场景调整。每个问题都有合格答案，以及需要再次追问的信号。
Q1，需求真实性：“你有什么最有力的证据能证明，如果这个产品消失，有人会真的感到困扰？”
合格答案：需要用户付出成本的行为。比如付费、自己用电子表格重构、主动两次询问、提供个人数据。
需追问的信号：等待名单注册、调研结果、“我聊过的人都喜欢”、投资者兴趣、创始人自身的信念。兴趣不等于需求。
Q2，现状替代方案：“他们现在是怎么解决这个问题的（哪怕方法很糟糕），这个替代方案在时间或金钱上的成本是多少？”
合格答案：具体工具名称、有时间成本的手动流程、部分工作内容就是解决该问题的具体人员。
需追问的信号：“什么都没做，这就是机会所在。”没人费力解决的问题通常是没人真正在意的问题。偶尔这种情况不成立，但此时需要用户解释为什么痛点一直未被察觉。
Q3，极致具象化：“说出具体的人。职位、什么能让他们升职、什么会让他们被解雇。”
合格答案：真实职位和真实激励机制，最好是用户实际交谈过的人。
需追问的信号：只提及细分领域而非具体的人（如“中端市场运营团队”）、虚构的用户画像、同时提及三个不同买家。
Q4，付费决策者与预算：“谁控制这笔预算，他们有没有明确说出愿意支付的金额？”
合格答案：具体的预算负责人、该产品可替代的现有预算项、买家主动提出的金额。
需追问的信号：仅和用户交谈过但付费决策者是其他人；“我们之后再考虑定价”；创始人自己设定的金额。在B2B场景中，喜欢产品的人通常无法批准采购，这种差距导致的失败比需求不足更多。
Q5，最窄切入点：“这个产品最小的可付费版本是什么？要能在本周内让用户付费，而非等平台建成之后。”
合格答案：一个工作流程、一个界面，几天就能完成开发，且有明确的付费用户。
需追问的信号：答案需要依赖平台、集成功能或用户群才有价值。
Q6，观察与意外发现：“你有没有观察过用户独立使用这个产品，有什么意外发现？”
合格答案：现实与预期不符的具体时刻。
需追问的信号：“他们很喜欢”、“没有意外”、仅自己演示过产品。没有意外意味着没有真实观察。
Q7，未来适配性：“如果三年后世界变了，模型成本降低，现有竞品推出了明显的同类功能，这个产品会变得更重要还是更不重要？”
合格答案：需求增长的原因，以及对“为什么现有竞品不直接添加这个功能”的回答。
需追问的信号：只提及增长趋势但无具体机制（如“AI很火”）。惠及所有人的趋势等于没有惠及任何人。