Solve Problems Nobody Else Noticed

Proof required

Submit your problem research file: notes from at least 3 real conversations (bullet points per conversation with specific things said, not paraphrases) and a written assumption inventory (at least 8 assumptions, each labelled evidence-backed or hypothesis-only, with one sentence of justification). The problem statement must be a real problem you intend to work on, not a classroom exercise.

What gets checked

• 3 real conversations documented with specific content — 'spoke to 3 people who agreed with me' is not research; the notes must capture what the people said, including things that surprised you
• Assumption inventory contains at least 8 assumptions with evidence/hypothesis labels — assumptions that are all 'evidence-backed' suggest the inventory was not honest about the hypothesis-only ones
• At least 3 of the assumptions are labelled hypothesis-only with an honest acknowledgement of what evidence would be needed to test them

Common mistakes

• Conducting 3 conversations only with people who already share your view of the problem — research that only confirms prior beliefs is not research
• An assumption inventory that describes the solution space rather than the problem space — assumptions about what users want are not the same as assumptions about what the problem is
• Skipping the evidence/hypothesis labelling and treating all assumptions as facts — the labelling is the core practice of honest problem framing

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the submitter to describe one thing a research conversation revealed that surprised them or challenged a prior assumption — genuine research always surfaces something unexpected
• Check the assumption inventory for 'hypothesis-only' labels — an inventory where all assumptions are 'evidence-backed' has not been applied honestly
• Confirm the problem is real and the research conversations are with real people who experience it — ask the submitter to describe one of the people they spoke to
• Ask what they would do differently in the next research conversation based on what they learned — this tests whether the research produced genuine updates

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit your 3 solution concepts (one paragraph each, making the core idea and its logic clear) plus test documentation for each: what the test was, who you tested with, what they said or did, and which of your M1 assumptions was most affected by the test result.

What gets checked

• 3 concepts are meaningfully different — not variations on the same mechanism; a reviewer should be able to describe the fundamental difference between them in one sentence
• Each concept was tested with at least 1 real person who experiences the problem — testing with the people who designed it does not qualify
• Each test documentation references a specific M1 assumption — the test was designed to answer a specific question, not to get general feedback

Common mistakes

• Generating 3 concepts that are all variations on the same core idea (e.g. 3 different apps rather than one app, one physical intervention, and one behaviour change)
• Tests that ask users to evaluate the idea rather than to interact with it — 'do you like this idea?' is a much weaker test than 'here is a prototype — try to use it to solve your problem'
• Not connecting test findings back to the M1 assumption inventory — without this connection, the test is feedback-gathering, not assumption-testing

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the submitter to describe the most important thing they learned from the 3 tests — genuine testing always produces a surprise or a significant update to prior beliefs
• Check that the 3 concepts are genuinely different — ask the submitter to name the fundamental mechanism behind each one in one sentence; if the mechanism is the same, the concepts are not meaningfully distinct
• Confirm tests were done with people who experience the problem, not with colleagues who evaluated the idea abstractly — ask who specifically was tested and what their relationship to the problem is
• Ask which M1 assumption was most overturned by the testing and what the submitter now believes instead — this is the core evidence of innovative thinking

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit your pitch document (slides or structured written brief, minimum 600 words) covering problem evidence, 3 concepts, selection rationale, and test findings, plus the reviewer's written assessment: their challenge questions, the riskiest untested assumption they identified, and their sign-off confirming their role and that this was a live session.

What gets checked

• Pitch document covers all 4 sections — problem evidence, 3 concepts, selection rationale, test findings — not just the favoured concept
• Reviewer identifies at least one riskiest untested assumption that was NOT in the submitter's own assumption inventory from M1
• Reviewer sign-off confirms innovation evaluation or product development background: investor, intrapreneur, product director, or founder with evidence of real products brought to market

Common mistakes

• Presenting only the favoured concept and glossing over the ones that failed testing — the M2 testing failure data is the most credible evidence of rigour
• A reviewer who focuses on the idea's viability rather than the submitter's process — the process (framing, divergence, testing) is what this outcome is developing, not the idea itself
• Pitch document that describes what the tests showed without naming what specific assumption was addressed by each test

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Ask the submitter what they would do next — a genuine pitch session produces a clear next action, not just a feedback summary
• Identify the riskiest untested assumption yourself before reading the submitter's notes — then compare with the reviewer's identification to see if they agree
• Confirm the reviewer's background involves evaluating or building real innovations — not just being knowledgeable about the domain
• Ask the submitter which of their M1 assumptions was most wrong by the end of M2 — genuine innovation work always updates prior beliefs significantly

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.