The Proof of Concept Trap
A working proof of concept is evidence that a thing can be built. It's not evidence that the right thing has been built.
A working proof of concept is evidence that a thing can be built. It's not evidence that the right thing has been built.
When a category fills up with SaaS tools, it usually means the workflow is proven. It doesn't mean the category is closed — it might mean the next layer is just becoming possible.
Product-market fit gets most of the attention. Workflow fit — whether the tool fits into how people already work — is often what determines whether product-market fit translates into retention.
The hardest systems to build for aren't the ones where requirements are unclear. They're the ones where the requirements are clear but keep changing while you're building.
Most products have a spec. Few have a spec that anyone reads, agrees on, and actually builds from. The difference is smaller than it looks.
Finding a funded competitor in your space feels like bad news. It usually isn't.
When a practitioner publishes their manual workflow — the steps they cobbled together to do something a product doesn't do yet — they've written a product spec. They've also confirmed the demand.
Waiting has a cost. It's usually invisible — you can't see the customer who found a workaround, the window that narrowed, the competitor who moved. The invisibility makes it easy to underestimate.
Research has diminishing returns. The arc converges. Continuing to research past convergence isn't information-seeking — it's commitment avoidance dressed up as diligence.
Before building a product, you need to build a proof. They're different things, optimized for different goals — and confusing them is one of the most common ways to waste months of work.