Product Type Classification
Position in HORIZON workflow: v0.2 Competitive Landscape → v0.2 Product Type Classification → v0.3 Outcome Definition
Consumes
This skill requires prior work from v0.2:
- Landscape map artifact (from Competitive Landscape Mapping) — Current behavior documentation, feature matrix, competitor analysis
- CFD-* entries (competitive intelligence, from Competitive Landscape Mapping) — Evidence from 3+ direct competitors + adjacent solutions
- BR-* positioning rules (from Competitive Landscape Mapping) — Constraints derived from competitive analysis
This skill assumes v0.2 Competitive Landscape is complete with documented landscape analysis.
Produces
This skill creates/updates:
- BR-* entries (product type classification) — Decision record showing which of the six types this product is
- BR-* entries (GTM constraints inherited from type) — Pricing, channel, scope, and timeline implications of the chosen type
- Product type artifact — Named decision: "We are building a [Type] product because [specific evidence from landscape]"
Example product type classification entry:
markdownBR-042: Product Type Classification Type: Classification Decision Date: 2026-02-01 Confidence: 70% (source: competitive-landscape-analysis + 3-customer-interviews) Classification: UNDERCUT Rationale: All 3 direct competitors (Notion, Linear, Figma) serve enterprise/mid-market first; SMB segment underserved. We can deliver 80% of feature set at 40% price for SMB-specific workflows. Evidence: - CFD-015 (landscape): "All competitors start at $50/user/month enterprise pricing" - CFD-018 (landscape): "3 SMB teams using workarounds because pricing doesn't fit budget" - CFD-001 (value hypothesis): "$12,500/year value for 5 core features only" GTM Constraints (inherited): - Pricing: Must be <$200/user/month to justify switching - Channel: Direct sales to SMB, not marketplace/enterprise - Scope: Ruthlessly cut features; 5 core + 3 differentiators max - Timeline: Fast iteration with SMB feedback; can't outspend enterprise marketing
Six Product Types
| Type | Definition | When Evidence Shows |
|---|---|---|
| Clone | Copy proven product, execute better | Leader validated market; weak moat; execution gap |
| Unbundle | Extract one category from horizontal platform | Multi-category platform does your thing poorly |
| Undercut | Same product, simpler + cheaper for niche | Tool overserves broad market; 60%+ price gap possible |
| Slice | Plugin/extension in existing ecosystem | Platform has marketplace; users already there |
| Wrapper | AI/API layer on existing data/tools | Middleware gap between tools; data accessible |
| Innovation | New solution to known problem | Existing approaches fundamentally broken; high pain |
Classification Decision Flow
START: What does v0.2 Competitive Landscape show? Q1: Is there a dominant horizontal platform doing many things? YES → Does it do YOUR thing poorly? YES → UNBUNDLE (extract the vertical) NO → Continue to Q2 NO → Continue to Q2 Q2: Is there a single-purpose leader with validated market? YES → Can you price 60%+ lower for a niche? YES → UNDERCUT NO → Can you execute better (speed/UX)? YES → CLONE NO → Continue to Q3 NO → Continue to Q3 Q3: Does target customer live in a platform ecosystem? YES → Does platform have marketplace/app store? YES → SLICE (build extension) NO → Continue to Q4 NO → Continue to Q4 Q4: Is there a data/API integration gap between tools? YES → Is the data accessible (API/scraping)? YES → WRAPPER NO → Continue to Q5 NO → Continue to Q5 Q5: Are existing solutions fundamentally broken? YES → Is pain severe enough for education investment? YES → INNOVATION NO → Reconsider market NO → Reconsider market or revisit Q1-Q4
Evidence Requirements Per Type
| Type | Required Evidence (from v0.2 Landscape) | Confidence Threshold |
|---|---|---|
| Clone | Revenue proof + feature gap + weak moat | Medium (50%+) |
| Unbundle | Platform size + category neglect + user complaints | Medium (50%+) |
| Undercut | Price benchmarks + niche pain + simplification path | High (70%+) |
| Slice | Platform MAU + marketplace presence + integration docs | High (70%+) |
| Wrapper | API availability + use case validation + cost model | High (70%+) |
| Innovation | Failed alternatives + severe pain + budget evidence | Very High (85%+) |
Output Template
After classification, create these entries:
BR-XXX: Product Type Classification
Type: [Clone | Unbundle | Undercut | Slice | Wrapper | Innovation] Confidence: [X]% Primary Evidence: [CFD-XXX reference] Classification Rationale: [2-3 sentences]
BR-XXX: GTM Constraints (inherited from type)
Pricing Constraint: [See references/gtm-constraints.md] Channel Constraint: [See references/gtm-constraints.md] Scope Constraint: [See references/gtm-constraints.md] Timeline Implication: [See references/gtm-constraints.md]
Anti-Patterns to Avoid
- Claiming Innovation when it's really Clone: If competitor exists with revenue, you're not innovating
- Undercut without price evidence: Must show 60%+ reduction is possible AND sustainable
- Slice without ecosystem validation: Platform must actually want third-party apps
- Wrapper without API access confirmed: Technical feasibility must precede classification
- Unbundle from small platform: Only works against large horizontal players
Reference Files
- Decision Framework: See
references/decision-framework.mdfor expanded decision trees - Examples: See
references/examples.mdfor good/bad classification cases - GTM Constraints: See
references/gtm-constraints.mdfor type → constraint mapping - Classification Template: See
assets/classification.mdfor structured worksheet
Downstream Impact
Classification constrains v0.3 decisions:
- Outcome metrics must match type (Clone = feature parity; Undercut = price advantage)
- Pricing model anchored to type (Undercut must show savings; Slice follows platform norms)
- MVP scope bounded by type (Clone = match leader; Undercut = ruthlessly cut features)
- GTM channel determined by type (Slice = marketplace; Undercut = direct to niche)
