• Use before writing when market assumptions still need field validation.
• Use after drafting when market claims need an evidence audit.
• Use when the plan's credibility depends on proving demand and customer behaviour.

• Do not use to launder speculation into “validated” language.
• Do not treat desk research alone as customer validation.
• Do not keep validating forever when a clear decision can already be made.

• Business idea, offer, and target-customer assumptions
• Existing market evidence, customer conversations, or draft claims
• Country, sector, and channel context where behaviour matters
• Adjacent market, target-market, and sales sections where consistency matters

1. Decide whether the task is pre-plan validation or post-plan auditing.
2. Identify the market assumptions or claims that matter most.
3. Gather or test evidence against those claims.
4. Distinguish validated findings from hypotheses and weak signals.
5. Reconcile the results with the plan's narrative and numbers.
6. Flag unsupported claims that should be revised or removed.

• The output clearly separates evidence from assumption.
• Validation work is targeted at decisions that matter.
• Weak claims are surfaced rather than buried.
• Findings improve the plan's credibility and focus.

• Using anecdote as proof of market demand.
• Auditing market claims without checking their financial implications.
• Equating interest with purchasing behaviour.
• Leaving unsupported claims in place because they “sound strategic”.

• A validation plan, evidence audit, or market-claim review
• Clear distinction between validated facts and open assumptions
• Recommended revisions or next tests

1. They have a problem or need
2. They understand they have a problem
3. They're actively searching for a solution with a timetable
4. The problem is so painful they've cobbled together an interim solution
5. They've committed or can quickly acquire budget to purchase

• Target 1-3 primary beneficiaries/users
• Connected payers, implementers, gatekeepers who directly influence
• Influenced community, regulators, adjacent businesses indirectly affected

• Ask "whySection " repeatedly
• Encourage stories ("Tell me about the last time...")
• Look for inconsistencies between words and actions
• Embrace silence don't fill pauses
• Never suggest solutions during the interview

references/empathy-validation-tools.md

1. Direct preselling use the LOT framework (Listen-Options-Transition)
2. Marketplaces post on Facebook Marketplace, local forums, WhatsApp groups
3. Landing pages simple page with price and buy button

"For [price], I will [benefit] in [time]."

references/rapid-validation-methods.md

• Classify each assumption as Minor / Major / Critical
• Assign owner and due date
• Track status: New In Progress Validated / Disproved

(Minor  1) + (Major  5) + (Critical  25)

1. Customer willing to pay
2. Cost of acquisition < revenue per customer
3. Sufficient evidence market is large enough

1. **Can it scaleSection ** $1 in acquisition produces > $1 in revenueSection
2. **Is there a repeatable sales roadmapSection ** Can others replicate the sales processSection
3. **Is the funnel predictableSection ** Can you forecast conversion at each stageSection

references/customer-development-process.md

• The problem exists and is painful (not a vitamin a painkiller)
• Target customers are identifiable and reachable
• At least 3 customers have paid or committed to pay
• Pricing is based on value-based testing, not guesswork
• The market is growing (Google Trends or equivalent check)
• TAM/SAM is calculated bottom-up, not just top-down
• Key assumptions are tracked with impact classifications
• Risk Score is below 100 (or declining)
• MVP has been tested with real users
• Product-market fit evidence exists (Ellis 40% or equivalent)

• Is TAM calculated using credible methodology (bottom-up preferred)Section
• Is SAM a logical subset of TAM with clear narrowing criteriaSection
• Is SOM realistic (typically 1-5% of SAM for startups)Section
• Are market size sources cited and current (within 2 years)Section
• Does bottom-up calculation align with top-downSection
• What is the market type: existing, new, re-segmented, or cloneSection (Blank & Dorf, 2012)

• Are growth projections supported by historical dataSection
• Is the cited CAGR from a reputable sourceSection
• Are growth assumptions consistent with the market typeSection (New markets take 3-7 years; existing markets grow incrementally)
• Is the business growing faster than the marketSection If so, whySection

• Are customer personas based on research or assumptionsSection
• Were earlyvangelists identified and interviewedSection
• Is the CAC estimate grounded in comparable dataSection
• Is the CLV calculation realistic given churn assumptionsSection
• Is the CLV:CAC ratio defensible (>3:1)Section
• Has the Problem Recognition Scale been assessedSection

• Are all relevant competitors identified (direct, indirect, substitutes)Section
• Is the market type acknowledged, and does competitive strategy matchSection
• Are competitive advantages genuinely sustainableSection
• Are competitor weaknesses based on evidence, not wishful thinkingSection
• Has cost-of-entry been assessedSection (74%+ = monopoly, 41%+ = leader, 26%+ = unstable, <26% = open; Blank & Dorf, 2012)

• Is pricing consistent with the value propositionSection
• Was pricing tested with real customers (value-based approach)Section
• How does pricing compare to competitors and workaroundsSection
• Does the pricing model support the revenue projectionsSection
• Have the Six Revenue Dials been consideredSection (Kagan, 2024)

• Did the plan authors conduct Customer Development activitiesSection
• Is there evidence of customer interviews, surveys, or presellingSection
• Are assumptions documented with validation statusSection
• Is the Risk Score reported and acceptableSection
• Has product-market fit been measuredSection

1. Classify the venture's problem recognition level
2. Identify earlyvangelists and map stakeholders
3. Design and conduct empathy-based research
4. Apply rapid validation (Golden Rule: 3 customers/48 hours)
5. Document assumptions with impact classifications
6. Build and test MVP through the evolution model
7. Measure product-market fit
8. Decide: pivot or proceed
9. Compile validated findings as input for business plan writing

1. Review sections 04-07 and extract all factual claims
2. Categorise each claim (market size, growth, customer, competitive, pricing, validation evidence)
3. Assess evidence for each claim, including Customer Development evidence
4. Flag unsupported or contradicted claims
5. Suggest validation methods for gaps (preselling, interviews, pilot tests, marketplace tests)
6. Produce validation summary dashboard

• Every factual claim is assessed, not just the obvious ones
• Validation is objective does not rubber-stamp weak claims
• The 9 Deadly Sins are actively checked for (Blank & Dorf, 2012)
• Premature scaling warnings are flagged aggressively
• Suggested validation methods are practical and affordable for the Ugandan context
• Critical issues are highlighted with urgency
• Risk Score trajectory is tracked if assumptions data is available

• references/customer-development-process.md

  Blank/Dorf's 4-step Customer Development, 14 rules, 9 Deadly Sins, pivot methodology, Business Model Canvas as scorecard

• references/customer-discovery-steps.md

  Cooper/Vlaskovits' 8-step Customer Discovery, C-P-S hypotheses, Funnel Matrix, Value Path, Business Ecosystem Mapping, outreach templates, MVP Evolution Model, product-market fit measurement

• references/rapid-validation-methods.md

  Kagan's Golden Rule, LOT framework, Dream Ten List, Price+Benefit+Time formula, Rejection Script, validation methods, One-Minute Business Model, Six Revenue Dials, Content Circle Framework

• references/empathy-validation-tools.md

  Alam's Transform3+1, stakeholder mapping, empathy research, persona template, journey mapping, BFCE framework, user testing methodology, Assumptions Tracking, Risk Score formula, elevator pitch templates

• references/mckinsey-problem-solving.md

  McKinsey's MECE principle (Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive) with worked examples; issue tree construction and branching rules; hypothesis-driven analysis (Initial Hypothesis method, three-step generation, insurance leakage anecdote); 80/20 rule as diagnostic jump-start; key drivers framework; fact-based analysis; Forces at Work four-category environmental scan (suppliers/customers/competitors/substitutes); elevator test; presentation structure (one message per chart, prewiring); 10 common analysis mistakes Source: Rasiel (McGraw-Hill). Read when structuring any analytical section (market analysis, competitive analysis, risk), when building issue trees, or when auditing claims for MECE compliance and fact-based support.
• 72-tool business analysis toolkit: See

  references/business-analysis-techniques-cadle.md

  for all 72 BA tools grouped by stage (strategy, investigation, stakeholder analysis, process modelling, options evaluation, change management), a business plan application table mapping each category to plan sections, and Uganda/EA contextualisation notes Source: Cadle, Paul & Turner (BCS, 2010). Read when structuring a market investigation, designing stakeholder analysis, building process models for the operations plan, evaluating options with CBA/NPV, or auditing a plan's analytical rigour against a structured toolkit.