Skip to content

Venture Evidence Ledger

This ledger is the source of truth for claims about customer demand, traction, pricing, channels, and business-model risk. It turns assumptions into explicit tests and keeps presentations from becoming more certain than the evidence.

It governs investor and partner decks, executive summaries, go-to-market decisions, roadmap stage gates, and financial-model inputs. Those artifacts remain their own Markdown sources of truth; they cite ledger IDs rather than copying or upgrading evidence silently. Generated .pptx files remain outputs of their Markdown outlines.

Rules

  1. Start with the riskiest assumption that could make the current plan fail.
  2. Record a falsifiable hypothesis before gathering evidence. Include a target segment, expected behavior, threshold, time box, and failure or kill criterion.
  3. Treat what people say as interview evidence and what they do as behavioral evidence. Do not merge the two. A compliment, feature request, or hypothetical willingness to pay is not a purchase, pilot commitment, retained use, or referral.
  4. Prefer the smallest ethical test that can change a decision. Record contradictory and negative evidence, not only supporting evidence.
  5. Separate WorkWingman evidence from market research and comparable-company context. Comparables can support plausibility; they cannot be presented as WorkWingman traction.
  6. Label planning inputs as assumptions until tested. A model, council, or persuasive framing can improve a test or explanation, but cannot create evidence.
  7. Use framing techniques to make a supported claim understandable. Never use urgency, status, narrative control, or presentation polish to hide uncertainty or overstate support.
  8. Every external-facing WorkWingman claim or business assumption must have a ledger ID, source, evidence date, and review date. External market research and comparable-company facts may instead use an authorized cited-source record with the same source/date/review/limitation fields; they must never be presented as WorkWingman evidence. Expired, contradicted, or unsupported claims must be removed or plainly qualified before presentation generation.
  9. Protect participants. Obtain appropriate consent, minimize collection, redact names and identifying details, and keep raw interview notes or personal data out of the repository. Store only anonymized findings and authorized source links here.
  10. Preserve WorkWingman's local-first, user-owned-data promise. No test may require selling candidate data, covert tracking, scraping restricted sources, automating LinkedIn actions, or bypassing human confirmation.

Evidence strength

Use the strongest label the record actually earns:

Strength Meaning Examples
Assumption Untested planning belief Proposed price, expected channel, estimated conversion
Interview A participant described a problem, workflow, or intent An anonymized job seeker recounts repeated ATS entry
Observed Behavior was directly observed without a commitment A participant completes a usability task or abandons a flow
Commitment A participant gives something scarce Signed pilot intent, scheduled implementation work, deposit
Outcome The intended real-world result occurred Retained use, paid conversion, interview, offer, renewed pilot

Product telemetry may support Observed or Outcome only when its definition and provenance are explicit. It does not reveal motive by itself and must not be treated as customer-discovery testimony.

App integration boundary

The Markdown ledger is the first operational contract. Do not overload the append-only MetricsEvent telemetry stream with interviews, hypotheses, or business decisions. If repeated use proves that an in-app workflow is valuable, implement a separate C# VentureEvidence aggregate/API preserving stable claim IDs, owners, timestamps, source provenance, threshold revisions, consent, and the decision history. It may reference immutable metric snapshots, but it must not mutate telemetry or infer demand from usage events.

Claim statuses

  • Proposed: hypothesis written; test not started.
  • Testing: evidence collection is active.
  • Supported: the predeclared threshold was met.
  • Mixed: evidence conflicts or differs by segment.
  • Refuted: the failure criterion was met.
  • Retired: no longer relevant; retained for decision history.

Supported never means permanently true. Review it when its review date arrives or when the product, segment, market, or source changes materially.

Record template

Copy this block for each material claim. IDs are stable and use VE-####.

### VE-0001 — Short claim title

- Status: Proposed | Testing | Supported | Mixed | Refuted | Retired
- Decision this informs:
- Riskiest assumption:
- Hypothesis: We believe [segment] will [observable behavior] because [reason].
- Test and channel:
- Pass threshold:
- Failure / kill criterion:
- Time box:
- Evidence strength: Assumption | Interview | Observed | Commitment | Outcome
- Evidence summary:
- Contrary evidence:
- Source(s):
- Evidence date: YYYY-MM-DD
- Review by: YYYY-MM-DD
- Owner:
- Decision: Persevere | Pivot | Pause | Stop | Pending
- Next test:
- Presentation wording allowed:
- Presentation wording prohibited:

Presentation gate

Before regenerating an investor or partner presentation:

  • Trace each WorkWingman traction, customer-demand, pricing, and outcome claim to a ledger ID. Trace external market-size, legal, and competitive facts to either a ledger ID or an authorized cited-source record.
  • Confirm the source is authorized, the evidence date is present, and the review date has not passed.
  • Match the wording to the evidence strength and status. Show assumptions as assumptions and ranges as ranges.
  • Keep interviews, observed behavior, commitments, outcomes, market research, and comparable-company facts visually distinguishable.
  • Remove personally identifying customer information unless written permission explicitly authorizes its use.
  • Regenerate the .pptx from its canonical Markdown outline and verify that the rendered deck preserves the qualifications.

Initial records

These records authorize only the wording shown. They do not turn assumptions into evidence.

VE-0001 — A working product and engineering verification exist

  • Status: Supported
  • Decision this informs: Whether a presentation may describe WorkWingman as a working, tested product.
  • Riskiest assumption: The product and its verification artifacts exist in the repository.
  • Hypothesis: A reviewer can inspect the product, test suites, and CI/security records described in the technical documentation.
  • Test and channel: Repository inspection and recorded build/security checks.
  • Pass threshold: Product source and named verification records are present and reproducible.
  • Failure / kill criterion: The product or verification records cannot be located or reproduced.
  • Time box: Recheck before each external deck release.
  • Evidence strength: Observed
  • Evidence summary: Product source, automated tests, CI configuration, and technical validation records are present in the repository. Exact counts are point-in-time facts, not permanent guarantees.
  • Contrary evidence: No external customer outcome is established by engineering verification.
  • Source(s): repository source; docs/technical/; CI and security records referenced by the deck.
  • Evidence date: 2026-07-20
  • Review by: 2026-08-20
  • Owner: Andrew Jones
  • Decision: Persevere
  • Next test: Re-run release checks and refresh dated counts before external distribution.
  • Presentation wording allowed: “working product,” “tested,” and dated, reproducible engineering results.
  • Presentation wording prohibited: “customer-validated,” “proven demand,” or undated test/security counts.

VE-0002 — Job seekers will complete a guided pilot

  • Status: Proposed
  • Decision this informs: Pilot design and whether to expand onboarding.
  • Riskiest assumption: Target job seekers will complete real application workflows with the product.
  • Hypothesis: At least 10 consented target users will attempt a real workflow and at least 6 will complete the predeclared core task during a four-week pilot.
  • Test and channel: Consent-based pilot; task telemetry plus anonymized follow-up interviews.
  • Pass threshold: 10 starts, 6 core-task completions, and 5 follow-up interviews.
  • Failure / kill criterion: Fewer than 6 completions or fewer than 5 follow-ups in the time box.
  • Time box: Four weeks after pilot enrollment opens.
  • Evidence strength: Assumption
  • Evidence summary: No completed pilot evidence is recorded yet.
  • Contrary evidence: None collected; absence of evidence is not support.
  • Source(s): docs/business/roadmap.md; docs/business/adaptive-solutions-pitch.md.
  • Evidence date: 2026-07-20
  • Review by: 2026-08-20
  • Owner: Andrew Jones
  • Decision: Pending
  • Next test: Recruit the consented cohort and freeze the metric definitions before onboarding.
  • Presentation wording allowed: “seeking pilot participants/partners” and “proposed pilot gate.”
  • Presentation wording prohibited: “pilot traction,” “validated demand,” or “partner commitment.”

VE-0003 — Proposed pricing can sustain a free core

  • Status: Proposed
  • Decision this informs: Pricing interviews and financial-model scenarios.
  • Riskiest assumption: Individuals or institutions will exchange money or scarce implementation effort at the proposed bands.
  • Hypothesis: In a defined segment, the predeclared share of qualified prospects will accept a priced pilot or paid plan after seeing the product and terms.
  • Test and channel: Problem interviews followed by a priced offer or letter of intent; thresholds must be set per segment before outreach.
  • Pass threshold: Not yet declared; no pricing claim may advance to Testing until it is.
  • Failure / kill criterion: Not yet declared.
  • Time box: Set with the first pricing experiment.
  • Evidence strength: Assumption
  • Evidence summary: Current prices and projections are planning scenarios only.
  • Contrary evidence: No purchase, deposit, signed pilot, or retained paid use is recorded.
  • Source(s): docs/business/financial-model.md; docs/business/monetization-strategy.md.
  • Evidence date: 2026-07-20
  • Review by: 2026-08-20
  • Owner: Andrew Jones
  • Decision: Pending
  • Next test: Segment pricing interviews, then a real priced offer with a predeclared threshold.
  • Presentation wording allowed: “proposed,” “scenario,” “planning range,” or “pilot pricing to be agreed.”
  • Presentation wording prohibited: “validated price,” “revenue,” “ARR,” or “willingness to pay.”

VE-0004 — WorkWingman demand and traction

  • Status: Proposed
  • Decision this informs: Any customer-demand or traction statement.
  • Riskiest assumption: A defined segment will repeatedly use or commit to WorkWingman.
  • Hypothesis: To be defined before the first demand experiment.
  • Test and channel: Behavioral pilot and commitment test, not compliments or model opinion.
  • Pass threshold: Not yet declared.
  • Failure / kill criterion: Not yet declared.
  • Time box: Not started.
  • Evidence strength: Assumption
  • Evidence summary: No WorkWingman customer, revenue, retention, or partner-commitment claim is authorized by this ledger.
  • Contrary evidence: No demand experiment has completed.
  • Source(s): This ledger and the presentation outlines.
  • Evidence date: 2026-07-20
  • Review by: 2026-08-20
  • Owner: Andrew Jones
  • Decision: Pending
  • Next test: Define the target segment and smallest commitment test.
  • Presentation wording allowed: “hypothesis,” “seeking,” and “designed to test.”
  • Presentation wording prohibited: “traction,” “customers,” “partners,” “retention,” “revenue,” or “validated demand.”

VE-0005 — Adaptive Solutions pilot completion gate

  • Status: Proposed
  • Decision this informs: Whether to proceed from the proposed Adaptive Solutions beta to a follow-up organization-tier test.
  • Riskiest assumption: A small partner cohort can complete a real qualified application safely and provide behavior-grounded feedback.
  • Hypothesis: At least 3 of 5 enrolled testers will complete one real qualified application without a privacy, safety, accessibility, or account-flag incident.
  • Test and channel: Four-week guided beta with consented use, weekly observations, and end-of-pilot interviews.
  • Pass threshold: At least 3 of 5 completions, no stop-condition incident, and at least 3 completed interviews with corroborating behavior.
  • Failure / kill criterion: Fewer than 3 completions, any stop-condition incident, or fewer than 3 completed interviews.
  • Time box: Four weeks after kickoff.
  • Evidence strength: Assumption
  • Evidence summary: This is a proposed, predeclared pilot design; no enrollment, completion, or partner commitment is recorded.
  • Contrary evidence: None collected; absence of evidence is not support.
  • Source(s): docs/business/adaptive-solutions-pitch.md.
  • Evidence date: 2026-07-20
  • Review by: 2026-08-20
  • Owner: Andrew Jones
  • Decision: Pending
  • Next test: Obtain consent and a named pilot owner, then freeze enrollment and stop-condition definitions before kickoff.
  • Presentation wording allowed: “proposed four-week pilot,” “3-of-5 decision gate,” and “seeking a pilot owner/testers.”
  • Presentation wording prohibited: “Adaptive partner,” “pilot underway,” “commitment,” or “validated organization fit.”

Authorized cited-source records

ES-0001 — Competitive and category context inventory

  • Scope: Simplify, Teal, Huntr, and Monster/CareerBuilder statements used as category context.
  • Source(s): docs/business/competitive-analysis.md source list and the company/pricing links recorded there.
  • Evidence date: 2026-07-20
  • Review by: 2026-08-20
  • Owner: Andrew Jones
  • Limitation: Secondary research and vendor claims may be stale or promotional. These facts support category context only; they do not establish WorkWingman demand, differentiation, or likely outcomes. Recheck the underlying sources before any public release.
  • Presentation wording allowed: Clearly labeled “external category context,” with no causal or traction inference.
  • Scope: CFAA/access-control, platform-terms, FCRA/consumer-reporting, privacy, and verification-design statements.
  • Source(s): docs/business/legal-compliance-risk.md and its linked primary sources, including platform terms, Van Buren, the FTC, CFPB, W3C, OWASP, and NIST.
  • Evidence date: 2026-07-20
  • Review by: 2026-08-20
  • Owner: Andrew Jones
  • Limitation: This is product-risk research, not legal advice or a legal safe harbor. Terms, enforcement, architecture, and facts can change; specialized counsel must review regulated verification or material external legal claims before launch.
  • Presentation wording allowed: Describe current architecture and risk controls, attribute legal posture to the cited research, and state counsel/review requirements.
  • Presentation wording prohibited: “legal,” “compliant,” “outside FCRA,” “safe,” or any categorical guarantee.