One method. Many bets.

Apply the same evidence discipline wherever the cost of a weak assumption grows quickly after commitment.

Start with the decision, not the feature list.

Each use case begins with a concrete question and ends with a visible choice: advance, adapt, or hold.

Which idea earns enough support to deserve the next investment?

Evidence: Expected and sampled support, strongest supporters, sharpest rejection, and the reasons behind both.
Decision: Advance, reshape, or stop the concept before committing build effort.

Does this feature change perceived value enough to justify roadmap time?

Evidence: Segment-level response, objections, confidence, and persona-level explanations.
Decision: Prioritize the feature, adjust the value story, or protect the roadmap.

Does the proposition land with the audience it is meant to move?

Evidence: Support and rejection patterns across cohorts, plus the language personas use to explain their verdict.
Decision: Refine the message before campaign production and channel spend.

What should the team add, keep, or drop before inventory is committed?

Evidence: Audience response by saved cohort, rejection pressure, and reasoning tied to the offer.
Decision: Focus the range and take a more defensible recommendation into planning.

Does the same idea survive with a new audience or market context?

Evidence: Comparable saved reports with support, rejection, and segment patterns for each tested idea.
Decision: Enter, adapt, or hold with the assumptions visible.

Describe one idea, choose an audience, and run a guided first simulation.

Use the conversation to pressure-test a real decision, not admire a generic product tour.