Market Validation Checklist: Buyer, Trigger, Stop Rule

Buyer: reconstruct a completed transaction

Begin by separating the person who experiences the problem from whoever approved a comparable purchase and anyone who could block it. This row is complete only when there is evidence about the decision-maker, not merely a user's account of what approval might involve.

Earlier market checks supply context, not proof of a buying path. Keep the first-stage records from market validation nearby while the initial gates distinguish a findable group of twenty names, access beyond your own contacts, painful problems from action, and clumsy spending that signals a budget.

Choose a similar purchase that actually took place, then ask the person with the problem who signed off, where the money came from, and whether anyone might have stopped the decision. Record the replies separately, since one person can hold several roles but those roles should not be assumed to match.

Next, seek a conversation with someone who had authority over that transaction. A user's account of how approval worked identifies a useful lead, but it does not confirm the route with the person who approved it; conduct that follow-up through customer interviews.

For each path, note:

Pause this test if every person you have contacted would need to consult someone else and you have not spoken with an authorizer. You may have heard that a user has a problem, but the available evidence has not yet established who can commit to buying.

Treat referrals as directions to the next conversation, not as proof of a confirmed approval route. For business buyers, the Census Bureau's County Business Patterns series reports establishment counts by industry and employment size; Census and BLS data can then size the group of possible authorizers.

Trigger: find the event before action

Look for a concrete occurrence that preceded a real search for change; general enthusiasm cannot explain what would make a buyer act at a particular moment. This row links an event to a decision sequence, while the reality of the underlying problem remains a separate test.

Possible events include a failure, a new hire, an audit, a renewal, crossing a growth threshold, or a rule change. The answer should describe what happened before someone sought a solution, rather than simply calling the issue important; assess the underlying issue separately with the problem discovery checklist.

Ask the person who acted what happened immediately before they started searching, then find out what they did next and who joined the decision. Write down the event and sequence in ordinary words. If accounts point to different events, keep them distinct rather than merging them into a general wish to save time.

Record the trigger this way:

Stop when the only timing answer is that someone may switch at some later point, since that leaves the buying occasion unspecified. An unusual event can remain a lead, but do not call it reliable until it is tied to an actual decision and another account can check whether it is repeatable.

Stop rule: name what would reverse your choice

Write one sentence specifying observable evidence, a date, and the action you will take if that evidence appears. Ask a disinterested person whether the condition is clear enough to recognize; a written stop rule is also part of founder readiness.

If I observe [specific evidence] by [date], I will [abandon or redirect the idea in a stated way].

Connect the condition to the buyer and trigger you investigated. It could concern confirming the approval route with the person who releases money, or whether a reported trigger connects to a real decision. These are prompts for your own test, not universal pass thresholds; do not invent a number merely to make the wording look precise.

Stop if you cannot name an observation that could change your direction, or if every possible result leads to continuing unchanged. Saying you will proceed when people like the idea does not identify evidence that could disprove an assumption. Set a date too, so an uncomfortable decision cannot simply be postponed.

Keep the tests separate: confirming an approver does not confirm a repeatable trigger, and a compelling trigger does not establish who controls the purchase. Neither finding helps you decide unless the stop rule states what could change your plan rather than merely support it.

An unanswered item is unresolved, not a pass; name the next person to contact or the evidence still needed. If authorization remains unverified, timing claims are provisional because the account may come only from a user; if the trigger remains unclear, buyer interest alone does not establish a reason to act now.

Once the purchase route and trigger are clear, a separate offer and refusal can inform pricing validation. Passing all three tests means you have identified an approver, a purchase trigger, and a condition that could change your decision; it does not establish that the product, price, or business will succeed.

For the market itself, the SBA says market research helps you find customers for your business. That purpose does not establish that a particular product, price, or business will succeed; those outcomes remain outside what these three tests establish.