Step 3: From sharp audience to value proposition

Outputs doc: outputs.md, Step 3 section. Fill it in as you work through the steps below. Raw interview captures go in captures.md. Step 4 reads the Step 3 section before starting.

Jump to: Diagnostic · Step 3.1 · Step 3.2 · Step 3.3 · Step 3.4 · Step 3.5 · Step 3.6 · Step 3.7 · Step 3.8 · Step 3.9 · Summary · Assumption sweep

What this step is: The single sentence that explains why the Step 2 segment chooses you over the alternative, where “the alternative” always includes doing nothing. It is not a slogan, a mission, or a feature list. It is the answer to the decision Step 2 named, written so it beats both the named workaround and the inertia that Step 2 called the blocker. The output is one claim you could defend to a skeptic, grounded in something true about you that the alternative cannot say.

Why it comes after Step 2 and before Step 4: Step 2 told you who faces a decision, what that decision is, and what blocks it. Step 3 is the answer to that decision. It cannot be written before Step 2 because “why choose you over the alternative” has no meaning until you know who is choosing and what they are choosing against. And it must be written before Step 4, because the message is just the value proposition expressed at different lengths and in different places. A vague or consensus-built value proposition produces a message that says nothing, channels that carry nothing, and lead generation that converts no one. If you cannot write a sharp value proposition, the usual cause is that Step 2 is not actually finished: the segment is too broad, or the decision and blocker were never named precisely. Go back before you push forward.

What finishing this step produces: A written value proposition in the Step 3 section of outputs.md that names the target segment, the value they get, the alternative it beats, and the differentiation that makes the claim true and hard to copy. Backed by evidence that the segment actually values the thing you are claiming, not by your own conviction that they should.

Diagnostic: is Step 3 actually done?

Before building anything, answer these questions in writing. Vague answers mean the step is not finished.

1. Can you state, in one sentence, why your segment chooses you over the alternative? Not a paragraph, not three bullets. One sentence a buyer in your Step 2 segment would recognise as a reason to switch. If it takes you three sentences, you have not chosen yet; you have listed.

2. Does that sentence beat doing nothing, not just beating a competitor? Step 2 told you the real competition is usually inertia, the blocker. A value proposition that only explains why you are better than a rival product still loses to the buyer keeping their workaround. If your sentence has no answer to “why change at all,” it is incomplete.

3. Is the value something the segment has told you they care about, or something you decided they should care about? A value proposition built on a benefit you find impressive but the segment does not weight is a value proposition for nobody. The difference is evidence: did someone in the segment say this matters, or are you inferring it?

4. Is the differentiation true and hard for the alternative to claim? “We are faster, cheaper, and easier” is what everyone says. If your competitor could paste your value proposition onto their own site without lying, it does not differentiate. The claim has to rest on something specifically true about you that the alternative cannot honestly say.

5. Was it chosen, or was it the result of consensus? A value proposition that three people softened until everyone agreed is usually true, safe, and dead. If every word survived because nobody objected, you have a sentence that offends no one and moves no one. A real value proposition makes a choice that someone could have argued against.

6. Have you put a price against the claim and a rough packaging on it? A value proposition with no number is only half-tested: a claim that beats the alternative at one price can lose to doing nothing at another. If you cannot say roughly what the segment would pay and which tier of value they would reach for, you will find out painfully in Step 6. Sketch it and test it with the claim.

If you answered all six clearly and in writing, Step 3 may already be done. Jump to the Step 3 section of outputs.md, fill in the fields, check the checklist, and move to Step 4. If not, work through the steps below.

Step 3.1. Pull the inputs from Step 2 (and Step 1)

Duration: 30 minutes

Step 3 does not start from a blank page. It starts from the decision and blocker Step 2 already named, and the workaround Step 1 already found. The value proposition is the answer to that decision, so the fastest route to a sharp one is to read your own Step 2 evidence as the question you now have to answer.

What to do:

1. Open the Step 2 section of outputs.md and copy the following into the “Inputs from Step 2 and Step 1” field in the Step 3 section:

   • The sharpest segment (including the team or role where the pain concentrates). This is who the value proposition is for. If you find yourself writing for a broader audience than this, you are drifting; pull back.
   • The decision the segment faces, in their words. The value proposition is the answer to exactly this decision, not a more comfortable one.
   • The blocker. This is what the value proposition has to beat. Write it where you can see it the entire time you work, because the most common Step 3 failure is writing a claim that beats the workaround while ignoring the inertia that actually stops people.
   • The buying context: who you market to versus who signs. The value the champion cares about and the value the economic buyer cares about are rarely the same, and Step 3.6 will ask you to hold both.
   • From the Step 1 section: the named workaround and why it falls short. The workaround is one of the alternatives you have to beat in Step 3.2.

2. Write one sentence: “The segment is choosing between ___ and ___, and they currently lean toward ___ because ___.” Do not polish it. It states the actual contest your value proposition has to win.

3. If the Step 2 segment is broad, or the decision and blocker are still partly guessed, that is not a Step 3 problem to paper over. A vague input here caps how sharp the value proposition can be. Note it in the Step 3 scope notes in outputs.md and log it in assumptions.md (Step: 3, Status: Untested). If the input is too soft to answer, the honest move is to return to Step 2.

Step 3.2. Map the competitive alternatives, including doing nothing

Duration: 45-60 minutes

A value proposition is comparative by definition: it explains why you over something else. So before you can write it, you have to know what the something else actually is, from the segment’s point of view, not yours. The mistake here is to list the competitors you think about and forget the alternatives the buyer actually weighs. For most B2B segments the real alternatives are the workaround they already have and the option of changing nothing, not the rival vendor you benchmark against.

What to do:

1. In the Step 3 section of outputs.md, under “Competitive alternatives,” fill in the table below (it is also in outputs.md). List every alternative the segment would actually consider, then describe each from the buyer’s point of view: what they would get from it, and where it leaves them short. Always include “do nothing / keep the workaround” as a row, because Step 2 told you it is usually the one that wins.

   Alternative	What the buyer gets from it	Where it leaves them short	How strongly the segment leans to it (1-5)
   Do nothing / keep the workaround
   Named workaround from Step 1
   Direct competitor(s)
   Build it themselves / internal effort

2. For each alternative, write the one thing it is genuinely good at. You need this because your value proposition must not pick a fight you lose. If “do nothing” is good at being free and zero-effort, your claim cannot be “we save you effort” unless the saving is large and obvious; it has to be something the status quo cannot offer at all.

3. Mark which alternative is the real one to beat. For most B2B segments it is the highest-scoring row, and that row is usually “do nothing.” The alternative you most need to beat is the one the segment leans to hardest, not the one you find most threatening.

4. Most of this table is inference until the segment confirms it. You are guessing at what they value in each alternative. Log the rows you filled from reasoning rather than from something a buyer told you in assumptions.md (Step: 3, Status: Untested). Step 3.8 tests them.

Step 3.3. Inventory what is actually true about you

Duration: 45-60 minutes

Now list what you can honestly offer. The discipline here is to separate what is true from what is differentiated, and to separate attributes from value. A long list of features that competitors also have is not a value proposition; it is a brochure. You are looking for the short list of things that are both true about you and hard for the alternatives in Step 3.2 to claim.

What to do:

1. In the Step 3 section of outputs.md, under “Attributes inventory,” list everything you can offer the segment: capabilities, the way you work, your focus, your model, your evidence. Write attributes, not value yet. “Built for operations planners, not a general tool” is an attribute. “Saves planners a day a week” is value (that comes in Step 3.5).

2. For each attribute, mark two things:

   • Is it true and provable? If you cannot show it, it is a wish, not an attribute. Drop it or downgrade it to something you can actually demonstrate.
   • Can the alternatives in Step 3.2 honestly claim it too? Run each attribute against the alternatives. If a direct competitor, or even the workaround, could say the same thing without lying, the attribute is table stakes, not differentiation. Keep it on the list (table stakes still matter for being considered), but flag it, because it cannot carry the value proposition.

3. Pay attention to attributes that come from your Step 2 focus. Vendors who aim at one segment usually have attributes a generalist cannot honestly claim, because the generalist serves everyone and is built for no one. Your narrowness, if you have been disciplined about Step 2, is often your most defensible attribute. Look for it here.

4. Circle the attributes that are both true and not claimable by the alternatives. This short list is the raw material for differentiation. If the list is empty, that is a real finding, not a writing problem: you may be selling a commodity, in which case the value proposition has to rest on something other than the product (segment focus, service, model, proof), or Step 1 and Step 2 need another look.

Step 3.4. Classify the attributes by Kano type

Duration: 30-45 minutes

Not every true, differentiated attribute earns the front of the value proposition, and not for the reason Step 3.3 tested. Step 3.3 asked whether an attribute is true and whether the alternatives can claim it. This step asks a different question: what does having the attribute, or lacking it, actually do to the buyer’s satisfaction? Some attributes only ever prevent dissatisfaction (their absence loses the deal, but their presence wins nothing). Others move satisfaction in proportion to how much you deliver. A few create value the buyer did not think to ask for. Leading with the wrong type is a quiet, common Step 3 error: you build the whole claim on something that, done well, still moves no one to switch.

The three types that matter here:

• Table stakes (must-be). Expected. Present, nobody notices; absent, the deal dies. Security, a working integration, basic reliability. No amount of over-delivery here differentiates, because the buyer’s ceiling is “fine”.
• Performance (more-is-better). Satisfaction rises with how much you deliver, and the buyer can feel the difference. Speed, price, hours saved. These can differentiate if you are genuinely ahead on one the segment weights.
• Delighter (attractive). Unexpected value the buyer did not ask for. Present, it delights and gets talked about; absent, nobody misses it, because they never expected it. Today’s delighter becomes tomorrow’s table stakes, so these decay.

What to do:

1. Take the differentiated attributes you circled in Step 3.3 and, in the “Kano classification” table in the Step 3 section of outputs.md, mark each as table stakes, performance, or delighter for this segment. The segment decides the type, not you: the same attribute is a delighter for one segment and an expectation for another.

   Attribute	Kano type (table stakes / performance / delighter)	If absent, deal dies?	If maximised, does the segment care?

2. Apply the one rule this step exists to enforce: a table-stakes attribute can never be the lead of the value proposition, no matter how good you are at it or how true and yours it is. Over-delivering on a must-be does not differentiate; it just clears the bar. Move your table-stakes attributes to a “we cover the basics” supporting line and take them out of contention for the lead claim.

3. Prefer a performance attribute the segment weights heavily, or a real delighter, as the candidate lead. Note which. This narrows what Step 3.5 turns into the leading value.

4. Flag the delighters on their way to becoming table stakes. If the market is catching up to a delighter, it has a short shelf life as a differentiator; note it so Step 4 does not build a durable message on a decaying advantage.

5. The Kano type of each attribute is your read until the segment confirms it. Log the classifications you are unsure about in assumptions.md (Step: 3, Status: Untested); Step 3.8 tests whether the segment treats your lead candidate as a real driver or merely an expectation.

Example (continuing the follow-up-system case): A working CRM integration is table stakes: without it the deal dies, but no buyer switches because your integration is slightly nicer. “One enforced cadence every rep actually follows” is a performance attribute the segment weights heavily, because they feel every deal that goes dark. “A record of which follow-up actually closes” is a delighter: nobody asked for it, and it becomes the thing they talk about. So the lead comes from the performance attribute, the delighter rides alongside it, and the integration drops to a supporting “of course it connects to your CRM” line.

Step 3.5. Turn attributes into value the segment cares about

Duration: 45-60 minutes

An attribute is something you have. Value is what it does for the segment, measured against the decision and blocker from Step 2. This step is where most of the work happens, because the same attribute can map to value the segment cares about deeply or value it shrugs at, and only the segment’s situation decides which. You are matching your differentiated attributes to the things Step 2 told you this segment is actually trying to achieve and actually stuck on.

What to do:

1. For each differentiated attribute from Step 3.3, write the value it produces for this specific segment: “so that [segment] can [outcome they told you they want].” Tie the outcome to Step 2. If the value does not connect to the decision the segment faces or relieve the blocker that stalls them, it is value for someone else.

2. Score your candidate value claims against each other in the matrix below (it is also in the Step 3 section of outputs.md). Use a 1-5 scale in each column. The matrix forces an honest comparison; it does not replace judgment.

   Candidate value claim	Segment cares (1-5)	True and provable (1-5)	Alternatives cannot claim it (1-5)	Beats the blocker, not just the workaround (1-5)	Total

   A claim that scores high on “segment cares” but low on “alternatives cannot claim it” is table stakes: necessary, but not the thing you lead with. A claim that scores high on “alternatives cannot claim it” but low on “segment cares” is a differentiator nobody wants. The value proposition needs a claim that scores well on all four, especially the last column. A claim that does not beat the blocker convinces only the people who were never stalled by it.

3. Build the anti-value list. Some claims look strong but quietly weaken the value proposition. Capture them in the table below (also in outputs.md) so you do not drift back to them in Step 4.

   Tempting claim	Why it looks strong	Why it fails for this segment

   Common entries: claims the segment does not actually weight, claims every alternative also makes (faster, cheaper, easier), claims you cannot prove, and claims aimed at a buying-group role you do not actually sell to. Naming them here stops them from creeping into the message later.

4. Most of this step is inference until tested. Whether the segment cares about a given value, and how much, is exactly what Step 3.8 interviews exist to confirm. Log the value claims you are leaning on in assumptions.md (Step: 3, Status: Untested), especially the one you expect to lead with.

Step 3.6. Choose the one value proposition

Duration: 45-60 minutes

Step 3 forces a choice. You have a scored list of value claims; now you commit to one as the core of the value proposition and let the rest support it. Trying to lead with everything produces a value proposition true for the segment and compelling to no one, the same failure as an unsegmented audience in Step 2. The single claim you lead with is the one that scored highest on all four columns in Step 3.5, especially on beating the blocker.

What to do:

1. Draft the value proposition using the positioning-statement template below. It is the structured form of the same comparative claim; it forces you to name the customer, the value, the alternative, and the differentiation in one place.

   For [target segment] who [decision or need from Step 2], our [product or category] provides [the core value from Step 3.5], unlike [the alternative to beat from Step 3.2], because [the differentiation from Step 3.3].

   Example (continuing the Step 1 and Step 2 example):

   For Series A B2B SaaS teams that run a direct sales team with no shared follow-up system, our follow-up system gives every rep a single enforced cadence so warm deals stop going dark between first meeting and close, unlike relying on individual rep discipline, because the cadence runs on its own and produces a record of what actually works instead of depending on whoever remembers to chase.

2. Check the draft against the alternative to beat, not just the competitor. Read it as the buyer who is currently leaning toward doing nothing. Does it give them a reason to change at all? If it only explains why you beat a rival product, rewrite it so it beats inertia. This is the single most important test at Step 3.

3. Hold the buying context. Step 2 told you the champion and the economic buyer care about different things. Write a one-line version of the value for each role you actually have to convince:

   • For the champion (who feels the problem): the value that solves their pain and makes them look good internally.
   • For the economic buyer (who signs): the value framed as ROI, risk reduction, or strategic fit.

   These are not separate value propositions; they are the same core claim translated for two readers. Step 4 will need both. If they cannot both descend from one core claim, your core claim may be aimed at only one of them, which means deals will stall at the other.

4. Strip the consensus out. Read the draft and find any word that is there only because it felt safe or because it would survive everyone’s objection. Cut it. A value proposition that offends no one usually moves no one. If the sentence makes a real choice (this value, for this segment, against this alternative), someone could have argued for a different choice. That is a sign it is sharp, not a problem.

5. Write the chosen draft into the “Value proposition (draft)” field in the Step 3 section of outputs.md. It is a draft because Step 3.8 tests it against real buyers before it becomes final.

Step 3.7. Sketch the price and packaging hypothesis

Duration: 45-60 minutes

A value proposition implies a price. A claim that beats the alternative at one price can lose to doing nothing at another, so a value proposition you never put a number against is only half-tested. This step does not set final pricing; it produces a defensible hypothesis to carry into the Step 3.8 interviews, so willingness to pay is tested at the same time as the claim rather than discovered painfully in Step 6. Price the value, not the cost: what the segment gets, measured against the problem’s cost from Step 1, decides the number, not what it costs you to deliver.

What to do:

1. Anchor willingness to pay on evidence you already have. In the “Price and packaging hypothesis” field in the Step 3 section of outputs.md, write what the problem costs the segment per year (from Step 1 and the Step 2 sizing) and what they already spend on the workaround. Your price lives as a fraction of the value delivered, well below the cost of the problem and above your own floor. Write it as a range, not a point.

2. Sketch a Good-Better-Best packaging hypothesis. Most B2B segments hold buyers with different needs and budgets, and a single price serves one of them. Draft three tiers, each a coherent bundle, in the table below (also in outputs.md). The point is not the exact numbers; it is deciding what value goes in which tier, because that is what you will test.

   Tier	Who it is for	What is included (the value, not the features)	Rough price anchor	The one thing that makes them upgrade
   Good
   Better (the one you want most to pick)
   Best

3. Name the value metric: the thing the price scales with (seats, usage, revenue managed, deals tracked). Pick the metric that grows as the buyer gets more value, so the price rises with the outcome rather than punishing adoption. Getting this wrong is expensive to change later, so write down why you chose it.

4. Write the questions this hypothesis has to survive, so Step 3.8 tests them: does the segment see the price as a fraction of the value or as a cost, which tier do they reach for unprompted, and what would move them up a tier. These become the price-and-packaging questions in the interview.

5. All of this is a hypothesis. What the segment will actually pay, and which tier they choose, is untested until someone reacts to a number. Log the price anchor, the tier split, and the value metric in assumptions.md (Step: 3, Status: Untested). Willingness to pay is usually a high-impact, low-certainty assumption, so treat it as a leap of faith and test it early.

Why this matters downstream: Step 6 designs the offer and the conversion path against a price the segment has already reacted to, instead of guessing. Step 8 negotiates from a packaging structure that exists, instead of inventing tiers under deal pressure. The price hypothesis you write here is the first draft of both.

Example (continuing the follow-up-system case): Dropped follow-up costs the segment several winnable deals a year, tens of thousands in lost pipeline, so a price of 6,000 to 10,000 a year reads as a fraction of the value, not a new cost. Good is a single-team cadence at 6,000; Better, the one most Series A teams should pick, adds the closes-analysis and multi-rep reporting at 9,000; Best adds manager dashboards and onboarding for a larger team. The value metric is active AEs, because the pain and the value both grow with every rep added. The open questions for Step 3.8: does the founder see 9,000 as cheap against the pipeline they already lose, and do they reach for Better or try to start on Good.

Step 3.8. Validate with interviews

Duration: 2-5 hours active work, 3-7 days calendar time | Target: 5-10 conversations

Step 2 interviews told you what the segment values and what stalls them. Step 3 interviews test whether the specific claim you chose actually lands: whether the segment recognises the value as theirs, finds it more compelling than the alternative, and believes the differentiation. You are not re-validating the problem or the audience. You are testing one sentence. Some of your Step 2 interviewees are the right people again; the questions are different now, aimed at the claim rather than the decision. Aim for five conversations minimum, drawn from the sharpest segment. Stop when you stop being surprised.

Do not substitute desk research for this. A competitor teardown can tell you what is already claimed in the market; only a conversation tells you whether your claim beats the alternative in the buyer’s own head.

A note on what you are listening for. The danger at Step 3 is the polite yes. People will agree your value proposition sounds good without it changing what they would do. You are listening for the difference between “that sounds nice” and “that is the thing I have been missing”, and for whether they reach for your claim or for an alternative when they describe what they would actually choose.

Where you already have users, run one cheap quantitative check alongside the interviews: the “very disappointed” survey. Ask existing users how they would feel if they could no longer use what you offer, with three options: very disappointed, somewhat disappointed, not disappointed. The share answering “very disappointed” is a rough read on product-market fit; around 40 percent or above is the commonly cited signal that the value is landing with a real segment. It does not replace the interviews, which tell you why the value lands; it tells you how widely it lands. If you have no users yet, skip it and rely on the interviews.

8a. Recruit from the sharpest segment

Duration: 30-60 minutes to set up, then wait for responses

You want people who fit the Step 2 sharpest segment, and ideally a mix of buying-group roles: a champion who feels the problem and, if you can get one, someone who controls budget. The economic buyer reacts to a value proposition differently from the champion, and you want to hear both.

Who to target:

Use the observable signals from Step 2 as recruitment criteria, the same way Step 2 did. Prioritise people who showed the high-intensity, low-blocker signals; they are closest to the decision and will react most honestly to whether your claim would actually move them.

How to find them:

• Warm network and prior interviewees first. Going back to Step 2 interviewees is efficient: they already understand the context, and you can move straight to testing the claim.
• LinkedIn outreach on the observable signals, not job title alone.
• Communities and review sites where the segment is active and articulate about the alternatives.

Outreach message template:

Hi [name], I am testing how [segment described by behavior] thinks about [problem area], specifically whether a particular way of solving it would actually be worth switching for. Not a sales call, I want honest reactions, including “no”. Would you have 20 minutes in the next couple of weeks?

Target: 5-10 conversations, weighted to the sharpest segment, with at least one economic-buyer role if the buying context in Step 2 said someone other than the champion signs.

8b. Run the interview

Duration: 20-30 minutes per interview

The goal is to find out whether your chosen claim beats the alternative in the buyer’s mind, and whether they believe the differentiation. Get them talking about the alternatives first, in their own words, before you show your claim, so their reaction is not just politeness about your idea.

Always record with permission. Open the same way every time:

“Thanks for making time. I want to understand how you would actually weigh different ways of handling [problem area], and to get your honest reaction to one approach, including everything wrong with it. Not selling anything. Okay to record?”

Follow the thread the person opens rather than reading this as a script.

Alternatives questions (7 minutes), surfacing the real contest, in their words

You are confirming Step 3.2 from the buyer’s side before you show your claim. Let them tell you what they would weigh.

• If you were going to change how you handle this, what would you compare? What is on the list?
• What is good enough about how you handle it now that you have not changed?
• What would the easiest option be, even if it is doing nothing?

Value questions (8 minutes), testing whether your claim is value they want

Now introduce the core value, ideally as a plain statement rather than a pitch. Watch whether they pull it toward their own situation or hold it at arm’s length.

• If you could change one thing about how this works today, what would it be? (ask before revealing your claim)
• Here is one approach: [state the core value plainly]. What is your honest reaction?
• Where would that help you, and where would it not? Be specific.
• Compared to [the alternative they named], would that actually be worth the switch? Why or why not?

Differentiation questions (5 minutes), testing whether they believe it and whether it matters

You are testing the “because” in your statement: is the differentiation credible, and does it matter to them?

• Does that sound different from what is already out there, or the same? In what way?
• Do you believe it? What would you need to see to believe it?
• Would that difference change which option you picked, or is it nice but not decisive?

Buying-context questions (5 minutes), testing the claim across the buying group

If your interviewee is a champion, you are testing whether the claim arms them to sell internally. If they are an economic buyer, you are testing the ROI framing.

• If you wanted this, who else would have to be convinced, and what would they ask?
• How would you justify this to [the economic buyer], or how would you want it justified to you?
• What is the objection the person who signs would raise?

Price and packaging questions (5 minutes), testing willingness to pay and the tier split

You are testing the Step 3.7 hypothesis: whether the price reads as a fraction of the value, and which tier they reach for. Never lead with your number; get theirs first.

• Given what this problem costs you, what would you expect something that solves it to cost? (ask before revealing your price)
• Here is roughly how it would be priced: [state the tiers plainly]. What is your honest reaction?
• Which of these would you actually start with, and why that one?
• What would make you move up a tier?

Closing

• Is there a reason someone in your shoes would hear this and still not change? What is it?
• Is there someone else, especially someone who signs off, you think I should talk to?
• Can I follow up if I have more questions?

8c. Capture immediately after each interview

Do this within an hour of each conversation, before the next one. For each interview, add an entry to the Step 3 section of captures.md using this structure:

Interview [number]
Interviewee: [role, company size or type, anonymise if needed]
Date:

Segment fit (do they match the sharpest segment? buying-group role?):

The alternatives they would actually weigh (in their words):

Reaction to the core value (verbatim, and was it "sounds nice" or "I need that"?):

Did it beat the alternative for them? (yes / no / conditional, and why):

Differentiation: believed it? did it matter to the decision?:

Buying-context note (would it arm the champion / satisfy the economic buyer?):

Objections raised (verbatim):

Surprises (anything you did not expect):

Any Step 3 assumptions this confirmed or challenged:

The verbatim reactions to the value and the objections are the most valuable output. They are the raw material Step 4 will turn into copy, and they are the evidence that confirms or kills your chosen claim. Capture them exactly.

8d. Synthesise across interviews

Do this after at least five conversations. Go through all your captures in captures.md and update the Interview synthesis fields in the Step 3 section of outputs.md, covering:

Did the value land as theirs. Did people recognise the core value as something they want, or did they hold it at arm’s length? Separate the “sounds nice” reactions from the “I need that” reactions. Only the second kind validates the claim.

Did it beat the alternative. This is the load-bearing finding. When people compared your claim to what they would actually do (including nothing), did it win? If most chose the alternative anyway, the value proposition does not yet beat the blocker, no matter how much they liked it. Revise Step 3.6, or go back to Step 3.5 for a claim that does.

Was the differentiation believed and decisive. Did people believe the “because”, and did it change which option they would pick? A differentiation that is believed but does not change the decision is interesting trivia, not differentiation. Note what they said they would need to see to believe it; that feeds Step 4 and Step 8 proof.

The real objection. Which objection came up most? That objection is what Step 4 and Step 8 will have to answer. Quote it verbatim.

Champion versus economic buyer. Did the claim land differently for the two roles? If champions loved it but the value the economic buyer needs was missing, the deal will stall at signing. Note the gap.

Willingness to pay. Did the price read as a fraction of the value or as a new cost, and which tier did people reach for unprompted? If they balked at a number the claim beat on merit, the packaging is wrong, not the claim. Note the tier they chose and what would move them up; Step 6 and Step 8 read it.

Product-market fit signal. If you ran the “very disappointed” survey, record the share. A low share alongside warm interviews usually means the value lands deeply for a sliver and thinly for the rest; revisit whether the segment is really the sharp one.

The language they used. Which exact words did people use when the value landed? These are future headline copy. Quote them verbatim; Step 4 reads them directly.

Surprises. What came up that you did not ask about? Often the most strategically important finding.

After synthesis, mark the relevant rows in assumptions.md as Validated or Invalidated, and note what the evidence showed. If the chosen claim was invalidated, the fix is upstream in Step 3.5 or Step 3.6, not in nicer wording.

8e. If you genuinely cannot get interviews

If you cannot reach anyone in the time available, use secondary sources as a temporary substitute, not a permanent one.

• Review sites for the workaround tools and direct competitors, read for what users say they value and what they wish the alternative did, which tests whether your claim addresses a real gap.
• Competitor positioning and messaging, read to confirm your differentiation is not something everyone already claims. If three competitors say what you planned to say, it is table stakes, not differentiation.
• Community threads and posts where the segment compares options out loud.

Document each source in the Step 3 section of captures.md using the same capture structure, noting that it is secondary. Log the absence of interviews as an assumption in assumptions.md. A value proposition validated only against competitor websites is weaker than one tested against real buyers, and that needs to be visible to every step below.

Step 3.9. Write the final value proposition

Duration: 30-45 minutes

You now have a chosen claim, tested against real buyers, with the alternatives, the differentiation, and the objection confirmed or corrected. Write the final version.

A complete value proposition has five components. Write them as one sentence plus supporting lines:

1. Target segment: the Step 2 sharpest segment the claim is for.
2. Core value: the one thing they get, tied to the decision and blocker from Step 2.
3. The alternative it beats: named explicitly, including doing nothing where that is the real contest.
4. Differentiation: the true, hard-to-copy reason the claim holds, from Step 3.3.
5. Role framing: the one-line champion version and the one-line economic-buyer version, both descending from the core claim.

Keep the core as a single sentence using the positioning-statement template. The role framings and the proof can sit beneath it as supporting lines. Format does not matter. Precision does.

Template:

For [target segment] who [decision or need], our [product or category] provides [core value], unlike [alternative to beat], because [differentiation].

For the champion: [value that solves their pain and makes them look good]. For the economic buyer: [same value framed as ROI, risk, or strategic fit].

Example (filled in, continuing the Step 1 and Step 2 example):

For Series A B2B SaaS teams running a direct sales team with no shared follow-up system, our follow-up system gives every rep one enforced cadence so warm deals stop going dark between first meeting and close, unlike relying on individual rep discipline, because the cadence runs on its own and builds a record of what actually works instead of depending on whoever remembers to chase.

For the VP of Sales (champion): you stop losing winnable deals to silence, and you can see which follow-up actually closes, without nagging the team. For the founder (economic buyer): fewer warm deals lost means more revenue from the pipeline you already paid to build, with no new headcount and a system the team cannot quietly ignore.

What to do:

1. Write the final version directly in the Step 3 section of outputs.md, in the “Value proposition (final)” field, with the two role framings beneath it.
2. Read it once as the buyer who was leaning toward doing nothing. If it does not give them a reason to change, it is not done.
3. Run the diagnostic from the top of this page one more time. If all six questions now have clear written answers, Step 3 is done.

What you’ve built

After completing the steps above, the Step 3 section of outputs.md should contain:

This is not a deliverable for anyone else. It is a constraint on Step 4.

Assumption sweep

Before moving on, scan the Step 3 section of outputs.md for any field you filled in from reasoning rather than evidence. Common ones at Step 3:

• The value the segment cares about most (did someone in the segment say it matters, or did you decide it should?)
• The differentiation (did a buyer say it is different and believable, or did you assume the market sees it that way?)
• The alternative to beat (did buyers tell you what they actually weigh, or did you list the competitors you think about?)
• That the claim beats doing nothing (did anyone choose it over inertia, or are you hoping they will?)
• The economic-buyer framing (did someone who signs confirm the ROI angle, or did you write it for a role you never spoke to?)
• The Kano type of the lead attribute (did the segment treat it as a real driver, or just an expectation you cannot lead with?)
• Willingness to pay and the tier split (did anyone react to an actual number, or is the price still your guess?)

Each unconfirmed field is an assumption. Log it in assumptions.md now if you have not already. The claim that beats doing nothing is usually the highest-impact assumption in the whole step; if it is untested, mark it a leap-of-faith and test it first.

What this step hands off to Step 4

Before moving on, confirm the Step 3 section of outputs.md is complete. Step 4 opens by reading it. Specifically, Step 4 needs:

• The final value proposition, because the message is nothing more than this claim expressed at different lengths and in different places. If the claim is vague, every piece of copy will be vague.
• The differentiation and the proof buyers said they would need, because the message has to make the claim believable, not just state it.
• The alternative it beats, because the message often has to address inertia directly, not just assert superiority.
• The champion and economic-buyer framings, because Step 4 writes for more than one reader, and the buying context decided who.
• The language buyers actually used when the value landed, captured in Step 3.8. Step 4 turns it into headlines.

The sharpness of your Step 3 value proposition sets the ceiling on how strong your Step 4 message can be. A message written from a consensus value proposition is mush by necessity. If Step 4 keeps coming out generic, the cause is usually here: the claim was never really chosen, or it was never tested against the alternative. Come back and choose.

Common failure modes

It only beats the competitor, not doing nothing. The value proposition explains why you are better than a rival product and has no answer for the buyer who keeps their workaround. Step 2 said inertia is the real competition; if the claim does not beat it, it convinces only people who were already going to switch. Add the answer to “why change at all.”

It is a feature list, not a claim. Three benefits, none chosen as the lead. The reader has to assemble the reason to switch themselves, and they will not. Pick the one claim that scored highest on all four columns and let the rest support it.

It is differentiation nobody can copy but nobody wants, or value everybody wants but anybody can claim. The first is a difference that does not matter; the second is table stakes dressed as a value proposition. You need a claim that is both wanted by the segment and hard for the alternatives to say.

It was built by consensus. Every word survived because nobody objected, so the sentence is safe, true, and inert. If you cannot point to a choice in it that someone could have argued against, it is not sharp. Cut the safe words.

The value is one you assigned, not one they hold. You led with the benefit you find most impressive, which the segment does not weight. The tell shows up in Step 6 and Step 7 as warm leads that do not convert and a sales cycle spent re-explaining why you matter. If that is happening, the cause is usually here. Lead with the value the segment told you they care about.

It drifted to a broader audience than Step 2’s segment. Writing for everyone who might buy instead of the sharpest segment produces a claim true for all and compelling to none, the same failure as a vague audience. Pull it back to the segment Step 2 chose.

It is aimed at the champion only. The claim solves the champion’s pain but gives the economic buyer no reason to sign, so deals stall late. Hold both framings, descending from one core claim.

“Our value proposition is obvious.” Said with confidence, with no single sentence written down that beats the alternative and that a buyer in the segment has actually reacted to. If you cannot point to it in outputs.md, tested, it is not done.

Sources

• Obviously Awesome by April Dunford. The core source for Step 3. Positioning as the deliberate choice of competitive alternatives, unique attributes, and the value those attributes enable for a best-fit segment. Steps 2 through 5 follow this structure directly.
• Crossing the Chasm by Geoffrey A. Moore. The source of the positioning-statement template used in Step 3.6 (“For [target] who [need], our [category] provides [benefit], unlike [alternative], we [differentiation]”), and of the discipline of positioning against a clearly named alternative for a single beachhead segment.
• Value Proposition Design by Alex Osterwalder, Yves Pigneur, Gregory Bernarda, and Alan Smith. The value-map-to-customer-profile fit behind Step 3.5: matching what you offer to the pains and gains the segment actually has, rather than to the ones you wish they had.
• The JOLT Effect by Matthew Dixon and Ted McKenna. On why buyers who acknowledge a problem still choose to do nothing. The foundation for the rule that the value proposition must beat inertia, not just the competitor.
• Differentiate or Die by Jack Trout and Steve Rivkin. On why “better, faster, cheaper” claims that every competitor can also make do not differentiate, and what real differentiation requires. Background for the differentiation tests in Steps 3 and 5.
• The Lean Product Playbook by Dan Olsen. The source for the Kano classification in Step 3.4 (table stakes, performance, and delight, and why over-delivering on a must-be does not differentiate) and for the “very disappointed” product-market-fit survey in Step 3.8.
• Monetizing Innovation by Madhavan Ramanujam and Georg Tacke. The source for pricing the value before building the claim, for willingness-to-pay conversations, and for Good-Better-Best packaging around a value metric. Behind Step 3.7.