Problem Framing Skill

Transform market signals into evidence-anchored problem statements.

Workflow Overview

Assess gaps → Identify what evidence is missing
Anchor evidence → Create CFD-IDs for each pain point
Extract dimensions → Pull multiple problems from each source
Quantify costs → Add time/money/risk numbers
Draft statement → Populate the problem table

Core Output Template

Populate this table for every problem statement:

| Element | Definition | Evidence | |---------|------------|----------| | Who is hurting? | Specific, findable, countable persona | Segment size | | What pain exists? | Observable behavior or workflow friction | CFD-ID | | Cost of problem | Time, money, or opportunity lost | Quantified | | Why now? | Market trigger creating urgency | Trend/event | | What's impossible? | Opportunity cost—what can't they do | User quote |

See assets/problem-statement.md for copy-paste template.

Step 1: Gap Assessment

Before drafting, create this status table:

| Element | Status | Source | |---------|--------|--------| | Who is hurting? | ⚠️ Hypothesis / ✅ Validated / ❌ Missing | | | What pain exists? | ⚠️ / ✅ / ❌ | | | Cost of problem | ⚠️ / ✅ / ❌ | | | Why now? | ⚠️ / ✅ / ❌ | | | What's impossible? | ⚠️ / ✅ / ❌ | |

Gate: Require ≥2 elements ✅ Validated before drafting. If ≥3 elements ❌ Missing, run deep research first. See references/research-prompts.md for research templates.

Step 2: Evidence Anchoring

Create CFD entries for each pain point:

CFD-###
Source: [Platform/Person]
Tier: [1-5]
Quote: "[Verbatim]"
Dimensions: [List problems extracted]

Evidence Tier Hierarchy:

Tier 1: Buying behavior (invoices, subscriptions, job budgets)
Tier 2: Active workarounds (spreadsheets, hired help)
Tier 3: Complaints with cost ("costs me X hours")
Tier 4: General complaints ("this is annoying")
Tier 5: Speculation — REJECT

Step 3: Pain Dimension Extraction

Extract multiple problems from each source. One quote often contains 3-4 distinct pain dimensions.

Example: "USB sticks removed for every update, no scheduling, screens don't communicate, priced for 100+ displays" → Sneakernet workflow, No dynamic scheduling, No centralization, Price mismatch

Step 4: Cost Quantification

Every problem needs a number:

| Type | Calculation | |------|-------------| | Time | Hours/week × hourly rate | | Money | Current spend on workaround | | Opportunity | Revenue/outcomes missed | | Risk | Penalty × probability |

Step 5: Draft Problem Statement

Use the core output template. Reference CFD-IDs for every claim.

See references/examples.md for good/bad examples with explanations.

Quality Gates

Pass Checklist

[ ] ≥1 Tier 1-2 evidence item
[ ] Cost quantified (time, money, or risk)
[ ] "Who" specific enough to build prospect list
[ ] "Why now" has at least Tier 3 hypothesis

Testability Check

[ ] Can find 10 people with this problem in 48 hours?
[ ] Can observe the pain behavior?
[ ] Can quantify cost without leading questions?

Anti-Patterns

| Pattern | Example | Fix | |---------|---------|-----| | Vague "Who" | "Small businesses" | → "SMBs with 1-10 screens" | | Feature-as-problem | "Need a dashboard" | → "Can't see status" | | Solution creep | "MVP must solve X" | → Stay on problem (v0.4) | | Missing cost | "This is annoying" | → "Costs X hrs/week" | | Speculation | "Users might want" | → Find evidence or reject |

Bundled Resources

references/research-prompts.md — Deep research templates by gap type. Use when gap assessment shows ≥3 missing elements.
references/examples.md — Good/bad problem statement examples with explanations.
assets/problem-statement.md — Copy-paste template for problem tables and CFD entries.

Handoff

Problem statement complete when quality gates pass. Next: v0.2 Market Definition (segments, sizing, ICP).