User Value Articulation Skill
Transform validated pain points into evidence-anchored value statements.
Workflow Position
Problem Framing → User Value Articulation → v0.2 Market Definition (pain) (value) (who cares most)
Consumes
This skill requires prior work from v0.1:
- **CFD-* entries (pain points, from Problem Framing) — Evidence for what problems users face
- PRD.md Why section (problem statement table) — Context for pain-to-value transformation
This skill assumes v0.1 Problem Framing is complete.
Produces
This skill creates/updates:
- CFD-* entries (tagged as value hypotheses) — Transformation of pain points into value statements, with confidence scoring
- MVP scope signal — Identifies which value dimensions will drive MVP feature scope (handed to v0.3)
All CFD value hypothesis entries should include:
confidence: 2-3/5(based on evidence tier from users or market)- Evidence tier (1-5 per value hierarchy)
- Forward target: "Would move to 4/5 if we validate with beta cohort"
Example value hypothesis entry:
markdownCFD-015: Value Hypothesis — Eliminate manual reconciliation workflow Source Pain: CFD-001 (sales teams waste 5+ hours/week) Evidence Tier: 2-3 (workaround + quantified cost) Confidence: 3/5 (source: 3-customer-interviews-jan-2026) Value Statement: "Reclaim 5 hours/week for strategic pipeline management" Transformation: [5 hours wasted] → [5 hours available for growth] Framing Type: Negative Removal (acute quantified loss) Quantification: 5 hours/week = ~250 hours/year = $12,500 (at $50/hr) Next Target: "Would move to 4/5 if we observe beta cohort using this feature"
Workflow Overview
- Receive pain points → Read CFD-IDs from Problem Framing
- Identify value unit → Time / Money / Risk / Capability
- Transform pain → value → Apply transformation pattern
- Anchor to evidence → What proof users want this outcome?
- Create CFD entry → Tag as value hypothesis with tier
Core Output Template
| Element | Definition |
|---|---|
| Pain (source) | CFD-ID from Problem Framing |
| Value Statement | One sentence: what user gains |
| Value Unit | Time / Money / Risk / Capability |
| Quantification | Number with unit |
| Framing Type | Negative Removal / Positive Gain / Capability Unlock / Risk Reduction |
| Evidence Tier | 1-5 per hierarchy |
| Supporting CFD | New CFD-ID for value hypothesis |
See assets/value-statement.md for copy-paste template.
Pain → Value Transformation
| Pain Pattern | Value Pattern |
|---|---|
| "Costs X time" | "Reclaim X time for [higher-value work]" |
| "Costs $X" | "Save $X [or redirect to growth]" |
| "Risks $X penalty" | "Eliminate $X exposure" |
| "Cannot do X" | "Now able to X when [trigger]" |
| "Takes X steps" | "Complete in Y steps" |
| "Manual process" | "Automatic + verifiable" |
Framing Type Selection
| Type | When to Use |
|---|---|
| Negative Removal | Pain is acute, quantified loss; "hate", "wasting", "losing" |
| Positive Gain | Opportunity cost clear; "I wish I could..." |
| Capability Unlock | Something impossible, not just hard; "We can't..." |
| Risk Reduction | Regulatory/compliance; penalty amounts cited |
Value Evidence Tier Hierarchy
| Tier | Description | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | User already paying for this value elsewhere | ✅ Highest |
| 2 | User actively trying to achieve this outcome | ✅ Strong |
| 3 | User articulates wanting this (unprompted) | ✅ Acceptable |
| 4 | User agrees when prompted | ⚠️ Weak |
| 5 | Builder assumes value | ❌ Reject |
Gate rule: ≥1 value statement must have Tier 1-3 evidence before v0.2.
CFD Entry Format
CFD-###: Value Hypothesis — [Title] Type: Value Hypothesis Source Pain: CFD-### Evidence Tier: [1-5] Value Statement: "[User gains X measured in Y]" Transformation: [Pain] → [Value] Framing Type: [Type] Quantification: [Number with unit]
See references/transformation-examples.md for worked examples.
Quality Gates
Pass Checklist
- Every pain point has corresponding value statement
- ≥1 value statement has Tier 1-3 evidence
- All values quantified (time, money, risk, capability)
- No feature-as-value statements
- Value unit matches pain unit
Testability Check
- Can explain value in <10 seconds to prospect?
- Can test with landing page headline?
- Value statement contains no features (no "dashboard", "tool")?
Anti-Patterns
| Pattern | Signal | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Feature as value | "Dashboard", "tool", "feature" in statement | Rewrite as outcome |
| Unmeasurable | "Better", "improved" without number | Add quantity |
| Disconnected | Pain unit ≠ value unit | Match units |
| Round inflation | "Save 10 hours" no source | Require calculation |
| No evidence | No CFD-ID for user desire | Downgrade tier |
| Solution creep | HOW (feature) not WHAT (outcome) | Remove implementation |
Bundled Resources
references/transformation-examples.md— 3 worked examples from real PRDs with step-by-step transformation process.references/research-prompts.md— Deep research templates when value evidence is Tier 4-5.assets/value-statement.md— Copy-paste template for value tables and CFD entries.
Handoff
Value articulation complete when quality gates pass. Combined with Problem Framing, v0.1 Spark is ready.
Next: v0.2 Market Definition (Who cares MOST about this value? Who pays FIRST?)
