Validate a new offer with customer interviews

What you’ll create

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

Workflow steps

1. 01
   Write the offer hypothesis and the decision the interviews should inform.
2. 02
   Code each interview separately before comparing patterns; distinguish direct evidence from interpretation.
3. 03
   Check whether the offer is clear, relevant, credible, and differentiated in participants’ own words.
4. 04
   Summarize evidence and choose one small next test; do not treat five interviews as market proof.

Start your workflow

Use the stages in order. Fill in the bracketed sections and add only source material you are permitted to share.

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.