Foundry Academy · Founder Business Fundamentals · Lesson 1 of 6

Customer, problem, and evidence

Define a narrow buyer, user, problem, and current alternative, then distinguish observed evidence from founder interpretation.

Start the lesson

Your learning work, on this device

No signup, cloud storage, cross-device sync or verified completion. Saving is optional. This browser profile is shared with anyone who can use it; private mode, browser cleanup or storage limits may remove work. Use only fictional or non-sensitive material. Export a copy before relying on this device.

Not saved. Worksheets, answers and practice notes currently last only in this tab.

Practice markers are self-reported, never credentials.

01 · Explanation

Customer, problem, and evidence

Objective: Define a narrow buyer, user, problem, and current alternative, then distinguish observed evidence from founder interpretation.

Begin with a situation, not a product description. Name who experiences the problem, when it occurs, what they do today, and what the current approach costs in money, time, risk, or missed opportunity. Separate the buyer from the user when they are different. A useful segment is specific enough that its members share a buying context and a reason to act. Broad labels such as small businesses or consumers hide important differences. Record the source and date of every market fact, and mark estimates as estimates. Secondary research helps size and structure the field; it does not prove that a particular person will buy.

Use customer conversations to investigate past behavior rather than request praise for the idea. Ask for a recent example, the trigger, the workaround, who approved spending, and what made the issue urgent or tolerable. Do not lead with a pitch or count polite interest as demand. After each conversation, capture direct observations, your interpretation, contradictory evidence, and the next question. Evidence strength rises when independent sources converge, a customer commits scarce time or money, or a test reproduces the result. It falls when the sample is convenient, the question is leading, or the claim cannot be traced. Protect interviewees' privacy and obtain permission before recording or quoting them.

Before you begin

  • Confirm M01-I01 through M01-I04 are available and preserve each supplied confidence label.
  • Treat F01–F03 as aggregate evidence; individual interview identities, dates, transcripts, and quotations are not supplied.
  • Confirm the artifact remains a bounded evidence table, not a claim that the customer problem is validated.

Original overview module anchor →

02 · Compare the artifacts

Supported work. Visible uncertainty.

This is a fictional, sanitized training case. It contains no real personal, customer, supplier, financial, or confidential data and does not provide legal, accounting, engineering, investment, or regulatory advice.

MesaLift predictive-maintenance venture

MesaLift is a fictional Utah founder project exploring a retrofit sensor and monthly monitoring service for independent automotive repair shops. The founder believes unexpected lift downtime is costly, but the current evidence is mixed. Nine shop managers were interviewed using a common question guide. Six recalled at least one lift-related interruption during the prior year, three described downtime as routine maintenance rather than an urgent business problem, and only two shared redacted maintenance logs. One five-bay shop signed a nonbinding letter to consider a paid pilot after a qualified safety review; another wants a free trial but refuses to install unproven hardware. The founder estimates a $149 monthly subscription and a $420 installation charge. A preliminary supplier email quotes $118 per sensor at 100 units, excluding enclosure, calibration, freight, installation, returns, and warranty. A competing preventive-maintenance contract costs roughly $900 per lift each year but includes inspections the proposed service cannot replace. The prototype currently detects vibration patterns on a bench; it has not been validated on an operating lift and no safety, electrical, insurance, or certification determination has been made. The founder has $28,000 available, wants to order 250 sensors, and hopes to raise capital within eight weeks. A collaborator says the algorithm is proprietary, yet the code repository contains an unreviewed open-source component with license obligations. The founder also drafted a pitch stating that MesaLift prevents failures and saves shops thousands, although neither claim is supported. Learners must turn this incomplete record into a staged, evidence-led venture plan. The goal is not to approve the product or predict success. It is to show how disciplined customer discovery, model design, economics, gates, responsibility, and claim control change the next decision.

Supported example — reference only

Item ID
EVIDENCE-01
Supported evidence
Nine shop-manager interviews were completed from one shared discussion guide.
Source input ID
M01-I01 (F01, confirmed)
Criterion or required state
Establish aggregate interview coverage without implying record-level review.
Gap or learner proposal
Interview identities, dates, transcripts, and quotations: not supplied.
Owner or reviewer
Founder and authorized commercial reviewer
Status
Evidence recorded — interpretation pending

A well-handled evidence gap

Item ID
GAP-01
Supported evidence
No record-level interview evidence is supplied in the module inputs.
Source input ID
M01-I01, M01-I02, M01-I03
Criterion or required state
Trace each material customer statement to an interview record before public validation claims.
Gap or learner proposal
Individual identifiers, dates, transcripts, and direct quotations: not supplied; create a future evidence-request list only.
Owner or reviewer
Founder and authorized commercial reviewer
Status
Gap open — no validation claim

Flawed approach — do not copy

Marking this customer-and-problem evidence table “approved and complete” without the required evidence or reviewer is a flawed submission. Stop any validation or market-wide claim if confirming and contradictory aggregate evidence is merged or record-level details are invented.

Repair: Rework the customer-and-problem evidence table as an evidence-backed draft, not an approved result. Capture each supplied aggregate observation separately and cite its module input ID before interpreting the customer problem. Create distinct rows for interview coverage, interruption evidence, non-urgent responses, supplied logs, pilot interest, and the existing substitute. Classify every row as confirming, contradictory, commitment evidence, alternative evidence, or an explicit record-level gap. Check the revision against this requirement: All supplied aggregate facts used in the table retain their counts, confidence, and source IDs. If the required evidence is still absent, keep the decision blocked and identify the missing input or authorized reviewer.

Full case record, ambiguities and all assignments →

03 · Bounded practice

Build the customer-and-problem evidence table.

Separate interview observations from founder interpretation and decide which segment merits the next ethical test.

Deliverable: A starter customer-and-problem evidence table at the aggregate level, a missing-interview-record gap log, and a revised problem statement.

Complete a bounded starter and gap analysis using only CB01, F01, F02, F03, F09, and the assignment-scope record below. Populate supported fields, label every unavailable field “not supplied,” and cite the input ID for each material statement. You may design a proposed template, control, question, or decision rule, but must label it as a learner proposal rather than observed case evidence. Do not contact people, access live systems, run tests, sign records, claim approval, or invent names, dates, quotations, transactions, results, or source documents.

Exact supplied inputs for this assignment
  • M01-I01 · F01 — Nine shop-manager interviews were completed from one shared discussion guide.
  • M01-I02 · F02 — Six managers recalled a lift interruption; three described the issue as non-urgent routine maintenance.
  • M01-I03 · F03 — Two shops supplied redacted maintenance logs and only one signed a nonbinding pilot-interest letter.
  • M01-I04 · F09 — A preventive-maintenance substitute costs about $900 per lift annually and includes physical inspections.
  • M01-B01 · CB01 — Use CB01, the full versioned case brief printed once at the start of this packet, as a citable narrative source for details not normalized into F01–F12. Preserve its uncertainty language and do not treat narrative detail as approval, complete operational records, or professional judgment.
  • M01-S01 · F01, F02, F03, F09 — Build a starter version of “A starter customer-and-problem evidence table at the aggregate level, a missing-interview-record gap log, and a revised problem statement.” from the listed case facts. Treat requested structures, controls, questions, calculations, and templates as learner-designed proposals. Where an operational record or result is absent, add a gap entry naming the missing evidence and authorized owner instead of fabricating it.

Operating procedure

  1. Capture each supplied aggregate observation separately and cite its module input ID before interpreting the customer problem.
  2. Create distinct rows for interview coverage, interruption evidence, non-urgent responses, supplied logs, pilot interest, and the existing substitute.
  3. Classify every row as confirming, contradictory, commitment evidence, alternative evidence, or an explicit record-level gap.
  4. Use the required-state field to state what buyer, user, trigger, consequence, and alternative evidence would be needed for a decision.
  5. Do not average six interruption reports and three routine-maintenance reports into a single favorable percentage that hides contradiction.
  6. Route the revised problem definition to the founder and authorized commercial reviewer; the learner records evidence but does not approve validation.
  7. Run a final trace check: every supported statement cites an input, every absent record says not supplied, and no interview detail was invented.
Field-by-field guidance
Item ID
Use a stable evidence identifier such as EVIDENCE-01; never use an invented interviewee name.
Supported evidence
Record only the aggregate observation supplied in F01, F02, F03, or F09, preserving counts and confidence.
Source input ID
Cite the exact M01-Ixx input supporting the row; use multiple IDs only when the row explicitly compares them.
Criterion or required state
Name the customer-evidence question this row can test, such as problem frequency, urgency, commitment, or current alternative.
Gap or learner proposal
State missing interview records or a bounded next-test proposal; label proposals and never present them as completed research.
Owner or reviewer
Use Founder and authorized commercial reviewer; no individual person is supplied.
Status
Use Evidence recorded, Contradictory evidence, Gap open, or Review pending; never use Validated or Approved.
Customer-and-problem evidence table · learning draft
Item IDSupported evidenceSource input IDCriterion or required stateGap or learner proposalOwner or reviewerStatus

Start with 2 rows; the complete workbook specifies 2 stable rows for this artifact. Add rows here or use the full download. No action is saved until you explicitly choose saving above.

Download complete six-module workbook (.md) · Structured case packet (.json)

Keep private client data, unpublished inventions, personal identifiers and credentials out of these public learning tools.

Module 1 · 2-item formative check

Customer, problem, and evidence

Choose an answer and request feedback. Read why each option does or does not fit the evidence. Answers stay in this tab unless you choose device-only saving; they are never submitted.

Question 1 of 2 · MODULE 1 · knowledgeWhich evidence most strongly supports running another controlled test of a defined customer problem?
Question 2 of 2 · MODULE 1 · scenarioWhat can MesaLift responsibly conclude from the Module 1 evidence before selecting its next customer test?

Answer either question to review its reasoning.

Inspect the artifact, not just your quiz answers

  • All supplied aggregate facts used in the table retain their counts, confidence, and source IDs.
  • Contradictory observations and missing interview records remain visibly separate.
  • The table supports a bounded next test but does not claim validation or completed outreach.

Stop: Stop any validation or market-wide claim if confirming and contradictory aggregate evidence is merged or record-level details are invented.

Go: Go to one bounded follow-up test when both positive and negative evidence remain visible and the unanswered question is explicit.

Escalate: Escalate any public customer, savings, or demand claim to the authorized commercial reviewer with its source and limitation.

04 · Evidence to keep

Leave with usable work.

Interview notes with consent status, source links, dated observations, and a written problem statement naming buyer, user, trigger, alternative, and consequence.

Download your artifact CSV and, if wanted, export the learning-work JSON above. Neither export is a reviewed submission or certificate. Device-only saving is optional; you must press Save my work now after edits.

When all six artifacts are ready, compare the full packet against the track rubric. Qualified human review is still required before real-world decisions.

Founders mapping a business plan together around a conference table.
Learn the standard. Practice the work.
Business team testing a venture plan during a modern office presentation.
Leave with evidence you can inspect.

Sources, scope and review boundaries

Curriculum 2026.10.08-learning-paths-1. External source dates below are record checks, not continuing guarantees. Verify current requirements before consequential use.

sba-plan-your-business · Official guidance

Plan your business

Current SBA consolidated guidance containing the market-research, business-plan, and startup-cost sections used in Modules 1–3.

Open reviewed external source ↗

nist-privacy-framework · Official guidance

NIST Privacy Framework

Primary voluntary framework for governing privacy risk in data collection, use, communication, and protection.

Open reviewed external source ↗

ws-founder-operating-standard · Academy internal operating standard

Wealth Synergy founder evidence and decision-gate internal operating standard

Academy-selected milestone, responsibility, scorecard, evidence-room, and review controls. This is an internal operating standard selected by Foundry Academy; it is not law, accreditation, licensure, or an external-standard requirement.

Version 1.0 · reviewed 2026-09-01 · owner: Foundry Academy curriculum owner

A future Wealth Synergy private professional-development certificate would be issued only after its assessment, capstone, identity, reviewer, retention, access, deletion, appeal, and issuance controls pass quality review. No credential is currently issued. Any future certificate would not be an accredited academic qualification, professional license, or government certification.