Product Type Classification

Position in HORIZON workflow: v0.2 Competitive Landscape → v0.2 Product Type Classification → v0.3 Outcome Definition

Six Product Types

| Type | Definition | When Evidence Shows | |------|------------|---------------------| | Clone | Copy proven product, execute better | Leader validated market; weak moat; execution gap | | Unbundle | Extract one category from horizontal platform | Multi-category platform does your thing poorly | | Undercut | Same product, simpler + cheaper for niche | Tool overserves broad market; 60%+ price gap possible | | Slice | Plugin/extension in existing ecosystem | Platform has marketplace; users already there | | Wrapper | AI/API layer on existing data/tools | Middleware gap between tools; data accessible | | Innovation | New solution to known problem | Existing approaches fundamentally broken; high pain |

Classification Decision Flow

START: What does v0.2 Competitive Landscape show?

Q1: Is there a dominant horizontal platform doing many things?
    YES → Does it do YOUR thing poorly? 
          YES → UNBUNDLE (extract the vertical)
          NO → Continue to Q2
    NO → Continue to Q2

Q2: Is there a single-purpose leader with validated market?
    YES → Can you price 60%+ lower for a niche?
          YES → UNDERCUT
          NO → Can you execute better (speed/UX)?
                YES → CLONE
                NO → Continue to Q3
    NO → Continue to Q3

Q3: Does target customer live in a platform ecosystem?
    YES → Does platform have marketplace/app store?
          YES → SLICE (build extension)
          NO → Continue to Q4
    NO → Continue to Q4

Q4: Is there a data/API integration gap between tools?
    YES → Is the data accessible (API/scraping)?
          YES → WRAPPER
          NO → Continue to Q5
    NO → Continue to Q5

Q5: Are existing solutions fundamentally broken?
    YES → Is pain severe enough for education investment?
          YES → INNOVATION
          NO → Reconsider market
    NO → Reconsider market or revisit Q1-Q4

Evidence Requirements Per Type

| Type | Required Evidence (from v0.2 Landscape) | Confidence Threshold | |------|----------------------------------------|---------------------| | Clone | Revenue proof + feature gap + weak moat | Medium (50%+) | | Unbundle | Platform size + category neglect + user complaints | Medium (50%+) | | Undercut | Price benchmarks + niche pain + simplification path | High (70%+) | | Slice | Platform MAU + marketplace presence + integration docs | High (70%+) | | Wrapper | API availability + use case validation + cost model | High (70%+) | | Innovation | Failed alternatives + severe pain + budget evidence | Very High (85%+) |

Output Template

After classification, create these entries:

BR-XXX: Product Type Classification

Type: [Clone | Unbundle | Undercut | Slice | Wrapper | Innovation]
Confidence: [X]%
Primary Evidence: [CFD-XXX reference]
Classification Rationale: [2-3 sentences]

BR-XXX: GTM Constraints (inherited from type)

Pricing Constraint: [See references/gtm-constraints.md]
Channel Constraint: [See references/gtm-constraints.md]
Scope Constraint: [See references/gtm-constraints.md]
Timeline Implication: [See references/gtm-constraints.md]

Anti-Patterns to Avoid

1. Claiming Innovation when it's really Clone: If competitor exists with revenue, you're not innovating
2. Undercut without price evidence: Must show 60%+ reduction is possible AND sustainable
3. Slice without ecosystem validation: Platform must actually want third-party apps
4. Wrapper without API access confirmed: Technical feasibility must precede classification
5. Unbundle from small platform: Only works against large horizontal players

Reference Files

• Decision Framework: See references/decision-framework.md for expanded decision trees
• Examples: See references/examples.md for good/bad classification cases
• GTM Constraints: See references/gtm-constraints.md for type → constraint mapping
• Classification Template: See assets/classification.md for structured worksheet

Downstream Impact

Classification constrains v0.3 decisions:

• Outcome metrics must match type (Clone = feature parity; Undercut = price advantage)
• Pricing model anchored to type (Undercut must show savings; Slice follows platform norms)
• MVP scope bounded by type (Clone = match leader; Undercut = ruthlessly cut features)
• GTM channel determined by type (Slice = marketplace; Undercut = direct to niche)