Score the buyer pain
Give a low score when the problem is occasional, easy to ignore, or described only in general terms. Give a middle score when buyers have a repeat workaround and can describe its cost. Reserve a high score for a frequent job with a clear owner, deadline, and consequence. Write down the evidence next to the number.
For example, “people dislike email” is weak. “A service team loses approvals when two staff members reply to the same client thread” is a concrete workflow to investigate. The difference is not clever wording; it is whether you can ask a buyer to show you the last instance.
Score distribution and monetization separately
Distribution asks whether you can reach the first buyers through a specific channel. “Social media” is vague. “Founder-led outreach to 30 export-service operators in one association” is testable. A good distribution score requires reachable buyers and a message tied to their actual job.
Monetization asks whether a buyer has a reason and authority to pay. A price on a competing website is only a clue. Look for a budget owner, a recurring cost of the problem, and a pilot you can quote. Keep willingness to pay separate from the size of a market estimate.
Score MVP ease as a learning constraint
Ask what can be tested in days with a narrow workflow and existing tools. A manual queue for three pilot customers is easier than a full platform with integrations, permissions, analytics, and mobile apps. A high MVP-ease score means you can learn cheaply; it does not mean the final business will be easy to operate.
If an idea depends on regulated data, complex migrations, or deep integrations before any user can see value, lower the score and identify a smaller wedge. Avoid using an easy prototype as a reason to skip data security or buyer permissions.
Use the total to set an interview order
Suppose an invoice-exception tool scores pain 4, distribution 3, monetization 3, and MVP ease 4: that is 14/20. The total says “investigate this next,” not “build this now.” A 12/20 idea with one committed pilot may be better than a speculative 18/20 idea.
Open the live board to see how each lead was rated, then use a 48-hour validation test to replace estimates with conversations. Re-score the idea when new evidence changes a dimension.
