Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Establish Growth Baseline and Attribution Framework
1–2 weeks (setup, not execution; execution runs for 6 months from this baseline)
Growth documentation begins before the measurement period, not after. This milestone captures the starting state of the business — revenue or active users — and the channel attribution framework that will be used to explain what drives changes over the next 6 months. Post-hoc attribution ('I think it was LinkedIn') fails the proof standard; the attribution method must be documented in advance and applied consistently throughout.
Proof required
Submit a growth baseline document (written or structured data) containing: (1) a payment processor screenshot (Stripe, Braintree, PayPal Business, Lemon Squeezy, or equivalent) showing MRR at the start date, OR an analytics screenshot (Mixpanel, Amplitude, Google Analytics) showing MAU at the start date, (2) the channel attribution method you will use for the 6-month period (UTM parameters, referral codes, cohort tagging, or manual source tracking), and (3) a documented growth target for the 6-month period (MRR or MAU growth rate). The start date must be explicit.
What gets checked
- Payment processor screenshot shows MRR from the actual billing system — not a manually constructed spreadsheet total; the screenshot must show the processor name and date
- Channel attribution method is documented in advance with enough specificity to be tracked — 'I'll ask customers how they heard about us' is not a trackable attribution method; UTM parameters, referral codes, or cohort tagging are
- Growth target is quantified — 'grow the business' is not a target; '30% MRR growth over 6 months' or '50% MAU increase by [date]' is
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Attribution method specificity: 'we use UTMs on all external links' is a trackable method; 'we ask customers' is not — if the submission describes a non-trackable attribution method, ask the founder to describe how they will reconstruct channel attribution at the 6-month mark
- Payment processor check: the screenshot must show the billing platform's name (Stripe, Braintree, etc.) and the current MRR or revenue figure — a screenshot from a spreadsheet or manually compiled revenue dashboard is not a payment processor screenshot
- Start date plausibility: confirm the start date in the baseline matches the submission timestamp within 2 weeks; a baseline dated significantly before submission raises questions about whether the baseline was genuinely set in advance
- Growth target quality: a quantified, time-bounded target ('30% MRR growth in 6 months') is verifiable; a directional statement ('we expect strong growth') is not — ask for a specific number and timeline before accepting
- Documenting the baseline after the fact — a baseline screenshot dated from weeks before submission that conveniently shows a low starting number cannot be verified as genuinely pre-period; the start date and submission date should be within 2 weeks
- Skipping channel attribution setup — founders who plan to explain growth retrospectively almost always attribute success to their most memorable recent activity rather than what actually drove conversions; pre-set attribution is what makes the M3 proof credible
- Setting an implausible or vague growth target — a target that will always be met regardless of performance ('grow by any amount') or one that is not measurable makes the 6-month review unverifiable
Three-Month Growth Snapshot with Channel Breakdown
3 months from M1 baseline (documentation takes 1–2 days at the 3-month mark)
The 3-month check captures the first half of the growth measurement period and establishes that the attribution framework is actually working. This is the data integrity gate: it proves the tracking methodology was applied consistently from M1, not reconstructed after the outcome period. A flat or declining 3-month snapshot is accepted — the requirement is honest documentation, not a predetermined result.
Proof required
Submit a 3-month progress snapshot containing: (1) a payment processor screenshot or analytics screenshot at the 3-month mark from the M1 baseline date, showing current MRR or MAU, (2) a channel attribution breakdown for the 3-month period showing what share of new revenue or new users came from each tracked channel, and (3) one specific change you made to the growth model in response to what you observed in the first 3 months and the result of that change.
What gets checked
- Payment processor or analytics screenshot is from the 3-month mark — not from 2 weeks after or 5 weeks after; the dates must be consistent with the M1 baseline date
- Channel attribution breakdown accounts for at least 60% of new revenue or new users — if 40%+ is 'unknown', the attribution framework from M1 was not effectively implemented
- The specific change and its result are both documented — 'we tried LinkedIn ads' without documenting what changed and what the result was does not satisfy the learning requirement
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Date verification: the screenshot date in M2 should be within 2–3 weeks of the 3-month anniversary of the M1 baseline; a snapshot submitted 6 weeks after the 3-month mark may have been compiled retrospectively
- Channel attribution coverage: accept a breakdown where ≥60% of new growth is attributed to specific channels; ask for clarification if the entire growth is attributed to 'word of mouth' without any tracking data to support it
- The 'specific change and result' section: the result must reference the same metrics used in the attribution breakdown — a 'change' documented as 'we started posting on LinkedIn' with a result documented as 'our brand improved' is not a trackable result; ask for the revenue or user count change attributed to that channel in the same period
- Flat or negative growth is fully acceptable at M2 — the proof standard is honest documentation of what happened, not a positive trajectory
- Submitting the 3-month snapshot at the 4-month or 5-month mark — retroactive data capture is possible but undermines the data integrity purpose of this milestone; late submission suggests the tracking was not in place throughout the period
- Attribution breakdown that only shows successful channels — if all 3-month attribution is attributed to one channel that happened to work, the breakdown is likely post-hoc rather than tracked; a credible attribution breakdown shows the full channel mix including channels that underperformed
- Listing changes made without documenting the evidence that caused the change — the M2 learning requirement is not a retrospective list of activities; it is a specific observation from the channel data that drove a decision and the measurable result
Six-Month Growth Report with Practitioner Review
6 months from M1 baseline plus 1–2 weeks for report preparation and review session
The full 6-month growth documentation: starting metrics, ending metrics, channel attribution for the full period, what drove growth, and what did not. The proof is reviewed by a named qualified practitioner — an experienced founder (>$1M ARR or equivalent scale), operator, or investor who can challenge the attribution methodology and growth claims in real time. This is the ADVERSARIAL VERIFICATION standard: the reviewer must ask specific questions the founder cannot have prepared for, and the Q&A must be documented.
Proof required
Submit: (1) a payment processor screenshot showing MRR at the 6-month endpoint (for revenue growth) with a 30-day trailing average visible — OR an analytics screenshot for user-growth outcomes, (2) a growth report (minimum 1,000 words or equivalent data visualization) covering: starting and ending metrics, full-period channel attribution with source data, top 3 growth drivers, and 2–3 things that did not work as expected, (3) a documented real-time Q&A with a named reviewer — the reviewer's full name, their qualification for reviewing this type of growth (their company/fund/role), the specific questions they asked during the session, and your responses in your own words. The Q&A must cover at least attribution methodology and one claim in the report that the reviewer challenged.
What gets checked
- Payment processor evidence for revenue claims: MRR evidence must come from the payment processor, not a manually compiled spreadsheet; for user-growth outcomes, analytics platform data is accepted; the 30-day trailing average prevents end-of-month spike manipulation
- Growth report covers full-period channel attribution traceable to the M1 attribution framework — if the M1 attribution framework was UTM tracking, the report should include UTM-sourced data, not retrospective self-assessment
- Reviewer qualification is specific and verifiable: a named person with a public profile, at a named company/fund/role, with evident experience at the growth scale being reviewed — 'my advisor' or 'an experienced person' does not satisfy the qualification requirement
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
Masteryfor the dedicated
What a verifier looks for
- Payment processor evidence: the screenshot must show the payment processor name (Stripe, Braintree, etc.) and include a 30-day trailing average or monthly breakdown — a single end-of-month snapshot without a trailing view is not sufficient for revenue growth claims
- Reviewer qualification: verify the named reviewer has a public profile (LinkedIn, company website, Crunchbase) that confirms their experience at the growth scale being reviewed; a reviewer claiming experience at '$1M ARR' who has no verifiable professional history is not a qualified reviewer
- Q&A documentation quality: the Q&A should show the reviewer's specific challenge in their own words (or a close paraphrase) and the founder's response in the founder's own words — a 'summary' that reads like a clean endorsement rather than an adversarial exchange likely does not reflect a genuine challenge session
- Attribution methodology check: ask the founder which specific tracking tool produced the channel attribution data in the report; if the answer is 'manual review of our notes', the attribution methodology from M1 was not implemented and the M3 channel breakdown is post-hoc
- Submitting a growth report without a real Q&A — a reviewer who reads the report and writes 'looks great' has not challenged the methodology; the Q&A must include at least one specific challenge to an attribution claim or growth assertion
- Selecting a reviewer who is too close to the founder — a co-founder, close friend, or current investor who benefits from the outcome being marked complete has an incentive not to challenge; the reviewer should be someone with no direct stake in the outcome
- MRR evidence that shows a spike at the end-of-period without the 30-day trailing average — end-of-period MRR can be inflated by pre-billing annual contracts or timing manipulations; the 30-day trailing average is the required metric to prevent this