hypothesis-tracker
Add, update, review, and kill hypotheses using CEO Bible framework
Hypothesis Tracker
Hypothesis management per CEO Bible Section J.
WIP Limits (Critical Chain)
- Max active hypotheses: 3
- Max concurrent experiments: 2
- Stagger rule: do not start a new experiment until the bottleneck step of the current one is complete
If the founder asks to add a 4th active hypothesis -> ask: "Which of the current ones are you pausing or killing?"
Reason: each parallel project doubles the lead time of all others (Goldratt Critical Chain). Less WIP = faster throughput.
Relay Race (Critical Chain)
Don't wait for the deadline. If evidence is sufficient for a decision (keep/kill/reframe) BEFORE the timebox — decide now.
On every hypothesis update, check: "Is there enough data for a decision already?" If yes -> flag: "H00X has sufficient evidence. Relay race — decide now."
Commands
The founder may say:
- "new hypothesis: ..." -> add (check WIP limit!)
- "update hypothesis X: ..." -> update status/result
- "kill hypothesis X: ..." -> close with reason
- "show hypotheses" -> list active ones
- "rank hypotheses" -> re-sort by ELV
Hypothesis Format (Bible J)
For [ICP] who [trigger/problem], if we change [message / offer / product step / pricing / channel], then [metric] will move from X to Y by [date], because [evidence].
Structure in memory/hypotheses.json
{
"hypotheses": [
{
"id": "H001",
"created": "2026-03-15",
"status": "active",
"statement": "For [ICP] who [trigger/problem], if we [change], then [metric] will move from X to Y within 30 days, because [evidence].",
"icp": "[Your ICP description]",
"change": "[What you're changing]",
"metric": "[Key metric]",
"baseline": null,
"target": null,
"deadline": "2026-04-15",
"earliest_decision_possible": null,
"evidence_tier": 4,
"elv_score": null,
"on_constraint": true,
"result": null,
"decision": null,
"killed_reason": null
}
]
}
Signal Tiers (for evidence quality scoring)
- Tier 1: costly-to-fake behavioral (paid pilots, expansion, integration, renewals)
- Tier 2: product/onboarding evidence (session replays, drop-offs, support tickets)
- Tier 3: commercial evidence (win/loss, objections, stalled deals)
- Tier 4: market narrative (competitor moves, content performance, search behavior)
- Tier 5: low-power (praise, vanity traffic, investor excitement)
ELV Score (Expected Learning Value)
ELV = (pain severity x frequency x wedge fit x evidence quality x strategic leverage) / time-to-learning
In practice:
- Prefer hypotheses touching painful, frequent problem in core wedge
- Prefer tests that can change a major decision quickly
- Deprioritize elegant ideas that take months to disprove
Experiment Design (when creating hypothesis)
Every experiment must contain:
- target cohort
- hypothesis statement
- exact metric
- baseline
- success threshold
- timebox
- owner
- what would falsify it
- what decision follows each outcome
Good vs Bad Experiment Types
Good pre-PMF:
- message tests, onboarding/TTFV tests, core workflow simplification, pricing framing, pilot design, PQL handoff, founder outbound, proof asset tests
Bad pre-PMF:
- broad brand campaigns, "viral" growth hacks, complex pricing overhauls without usage proof, feature programs with no decision question
Readout Rules
Experiment produces real learning only if it changes one of:
- who you target
- what you promise
- what users must do first
- what sales motion you use
- what you price/package
- what you stop building
A test that moves a CTR but doesn't change a real decision = activity, not learning.
When Updating a Hypothesis
Log:
- Result (data)
- Decision (keep / kill / reframe)
- What changed in the company as a result
- Update
MEMORY.mdif the hypothesis affected wedge/stage
Follow output preferences from USER.md.