# Validate a new offer with customer interviews

**trustWF workflow pack** · Marketing

## Outcome
A five-interview evidence summary, unresolved questions, and a low-cost next test.

## Who this is for
A small-business marketer or founder assessing an offer before investing in a launch

## What to provide
Required: offer description, intended audience, interview notes or transcripts, and the decision you need to make. Optional: current alternative, price hypothesis, and launch constraints. Remove names and identifying details.

## Steps
1. Write the offer hypothesis and the decision the interviews should inform.
2. Code each interview separately before comparing patterns; distinguish direct evidence from interpretation.
3. Check whether the offer is clear, relevant, credible, and differentiated in participants’ own words.
4. Summarize evidence and choose one small next test; do not treat five interviews as market proof.

## Copy-ready instructions
STAGE 1 — 1. Set the test
When to use: Use before reviewing interview notes.
Prompt: You are helping me evaluate an early business offer from customer interview evidence. Offer: [paste the exact offer description]. Intended audience: [describe the segment]. Decision to inform: [what will I decide after this review?]. For each interview note set below, identify only what the participant explicitly said about the problem, current workaround, appeal of this offer, concerns, and willingness to take a next step. Keep each interview separate. Do not infer interest from politeness. Mark missing evidence as “not covered.” Interview notes (anonymized): [paste notes, labeled Interview 1–5].
Expected return: A separate evidence table for each interview and a short list of evidence gaps.
User check: Check that each observation is traceable to a note and that no participant is identifiable.

STAGE 2 — 2. Compare patterns
When to use: Use after checking Stage 1 against the notes.
Prompt: Using the interview evidence already in this chat, compare the five participants without treating the sample as representative. Create a table with: theme, supporting interview IDs, exact or faithful evidence, counterexample, and confidence (low/medium/high, with a reason). Assess offer clarity, problem relevance, current alternative, credibility, and stated next-step interest. Separate repeated evidence from one-person comments and from your interpretation.
Expected return: A cross-interview pattern table and the strongest unresolved questions.
User check: Verify interview IDs and quotations; challenge any theme that rests on one comment.

STAGE 3 — 3. Recommend a next test
When to use: Use after correcting any Stage 2 errors.
Prompt: Based only on the interview evidence and offer details already provided, recommend one low-cost next test. Give: hypothesis, target participants, test setup, what to show or ask, observable success and failure signals, duration or sample-size rationale (label any suggested number as a planning choice, not a proven benchmark), and decision rule. List what this small test cannot establish. If evidence is mixed, say so and propose the test that best distinguishes the competing explanations.
Expected return: A one-page next-test plan plus a concise evidence summary and caveats.
User check: Confirm the test is feasible, ethical, and not presented as proof of market demand.

## Review before using
Do not invent participant views or generalize five interviews to a whole market. Keep quotes exact and anonymous; obtain permission before using any quote externally.

---
Use the result as a draft. Review it for accuracy, context and any required approvals.