tool-foundation-sprint-founding-hypothesis

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Foundation Sprint Founding Hypothesis

Day 2 end of a Foundation Sprint. The team compresses the full sprint output into a single canonical sentence plus a testable scorecard. This is the artifact the sprint exists to produce; everything before this skill was preparation. Without a ratifiable Founding Hypothesis, the sprint failed.

Family contract:

docs/reference/skill-families/foundation-sprint-skills-contract.md

. This skill is a member of

foundation-sprint-skills

Foundation Sprint第2天的收尾环节。团队将整个冲刺的产出内容压缩为一句标准规范的句子，再加上一份可测试的评分卡。这是本次冲刺要产出的核心成果；在此之前的所有技能环节都是准备工作。若无法达成可批准的Founding Hypothesis，则本次冲刺视为失败。

技能家族协议：

docs/reference/skill-families/foundation-sprint-skills-contract.md

。本技能属于

foundation-sprint-skills

技能家族。

When to Use

使用时机

Day 2 end of a Foundation Sprint.
Magic Lenses is signed; top bet and backup are named.
The team has 30-45 minutes left in Day 2 and the energy to write the sentence carefully.

Foundation Sprint第2天收尾阶段。
Magic Lenses已签署，且已确定核心方案与备选方案。
团队在第2天还剩30-45分钟时间，且有精力仔细撰写该句子。

When NOT to Use

不适用场景

Magic Lenses did not produce a clear top bet. Return to Magic Lenses; the Founding Hypothesis cannot stabilize on an unstable top bet.
The team wants to "polish the hypothesis later." The hypothesis must be ratified by end of Day 2 or the sprint output is incomplete. Polishing later means re-litigating; that defeats the sprint's purpose.
The team wants to ratify a vague hypothesis to "ship the sprint." A vague hypothesis is worse than no hypothesis; it gives false confidence and burns trust when validation fails.

Magic Lenses未产出明确的核心方案。需回到Magic Lenses环节；基于不稳定的核心方案无法形成稳定的Founding Hypothesis。
团队希望“稍后再完善假设”。假设必须在第2天结束前获得批准，否则冲刺产出不完整。后续再完善意味着重新讨论，这违背了冲刺的初衷。
团队希望通过批准模糊的假设来“完成冲刺”。模糊的假设比没有假设更糟糕；它会带来虚假的信心，一旦验证失败还会损害信任。

What This Skill Produces

本技能产出

A single bundled artifact with five sections:

Founding Hypothesis statement: the single canonical sentence (strict template, no paraphrase).
Assumption scorecard: 5-7 assumptions extracted from the hypothesis, each scored on current confidence and tagged with a best next test (3-10 accepted; recommended range is 5-7).
Why we believe this: 3-5 bulleted points naming the evidence base.
What could prove us wrong: 3-5 bulleted points naming the risks. This section is the test of whether the team is in love with the hypothesis or holding it with calibrated confidence.
Recommended next validation step: Design Sprint, customer research, experiment, landing page test, or other. Names the specific test, owner, and timeline.

See

references/TEMPLATE.md

for the canonical template and

references/EXAMPLE.md

for the Brainshelf example.

一份包含五个部分的整合成果：

Founding Hypothesis 陈述：一句标准规范的句子（严格遵循模板，不接受意译）。
假设评分卡：从假设中提取5-7条假设，每条假设需评估当前置信度并标注最佳后续测试方案（可接受3-10条，推荐范围为5-7条）。
我们为何相信该假设：3-5条带项目符号的要点，列出支撑依据。
哪些因素会证明我们错误：3-5条带项目符号的要点，列出风险。此部分用于检验团队是盲目认同假设，还是保持着合理的置信度。
建议的下一步验证步骤：Design Sprint、客户调研、实验、落地页测试或其他方式。需明确具体测试内容、负责人和时间线。

标准模板请参考

references/TEMPLATE.md

，Brainshelf示例请参考

references/EXAMPLE.md

。

The Canonical Template (Strict)

标准模板（严格遵循）

text

If we help [target customer] solve [important problem]
with [approach], they will choose it over [competitors or alternatives]
because our solution is [differentiators].

This template is strict for v0.1.0 (per ratified spec decision). Paraphrase is not accepted. Variations like "Because we help X with Y..." or compressing two slots into one ("solve [problem] with [approach]") are rejected by the skill. The strictness is intentional: forcing the template forces the team to fill every slot specifically.

The five slots are:

Slot	Source	Discipline check
target customer	Basics target customer statement	Must be specific (markers, not segments)
important problem	Basics important problem statement	Must be painful enough to drive switching
approach	Magic Lenses top bet	Must be the top bet, not a softened version
competitors or alternatives	Basics competitor map	Must include "do nothing" if it was named there
differentiators	Differentiation chosen two	Must be both differentiators, not just one

If any slot is vague, the skill rejects the hypothesis and prompts for revision.

text

If we help [target customer] solve [important problem]
with [approach], they will choose it over [competitors or alternatives]
because our solution is [differentiators].

v0.1.0版本严格遵循此模板（已通过规范决议）。不接受意译。诸如“Because we help X with Y...”或将两个槽位合并（如"solve [problem] with [approach]"）的变体均不被本技能认可。这种严格性是有意为之：强制使用模板能促使团队明确填充每个槽位的内容。

五个槽位如下：

槽位	来源	规范检查
target customer	Basics target customer statement	必须具体（明确特征，而非笼统群体）
important problem	Basics important problem statement	必须足够痛点，能驱动用户转换
approach	Magic Lenses top bet	必须是核心方案，不能是弱化版本
competitors or alternatives	Basics competitor map	若在竞品图中提及“不采取任何行动”，则必须包含该选项
differentiators	Differentiation chosen two	必须包含两个差异化点，不能只选一个

若任何槽位内容模糊，本技能将驳回该假设并提示修改。

What Makes a Good Founding Hypothesis

优质Founding Hypothesis的特征

Quality	What it means
Specific	Names a real customer and a real problem; not "users" and "frustrations"
Comparative	Explains what customers choose today, including doing nothing
Differentiated	States why this solution should win, not just that it should
Testable	Translates into scorecard questions and experiments
Simple	A customer can understand the promise quickly
Uncomfortable enough to be useful	If nobody disagrees or feels exposed, the hypothesis may be too vague

The "uncomfortable" quality is the hardest to enforce: teams unconsciously soften the hypothesis to make it ratifiable. The skill counter-acts by asking, in the discussion phase, "Who in this room would push back on this if they weren't on this team?" Silence is a signal that the hypothesis is too safe.

特征	含义
Specific	明确真实的客户和具体的问题；不能是“用户”和“痛点”这类笼统表述
Comparative	说明客户当前的选择，包括“不采取任何行动”
Differentiated	阐述本方案获胜的原因，而非仅声称会获胜
Testable	可转化为评分卡问题和实验内容
Simple	客户能快速理解方案承诺
Uncomfortable enough to be useful	若无人提出异议或感到不安，说明假设可能过于模糊

“不安”这一特征最难落实：团队会无意识地弱化假设以使其获得批准。本技能通过在讨论阶段提出问题来应对这一情况：“如果不在这个团队，在场的谁会反对这个假设？”若无人回应，则表明假设过于保守。

Assumption Scorecard

假设评分卡

Decompose the hypothesis into 5-7 assumptions (recommended; 3-10 accepted per ratified spec decision). For each:

Field	What goes here
Assumption	One sentence, derived from a specific slot of the hypothesis
Why it matters	What would be invalidated if this assumption is wrong
Current confidence	High / Medium-high / Medium / Medium-low / Low
Best next test	Specific test that would change the confidence level

The highest-risk assumption (lowest current confidence, highest blast-radius-if-wrong) is the assumption the next validation step (often a Design Sprint) should test first.

将假设拆解为5-7条子假设（推荐数量；根据已通过的规范决议，可接受3-10条）。每条子假设需包含以下内容：

字段	内容说明
Assumption	一句话，源自假设中的某个特定槽位
Why it matters	若该假设错误，哪些内容会被推翻
Current confidence	高 / 中高 / 中 / 中低 / 低
Best next test	能改变置信度的具体测试方案

风险最高的假设（当前置信度最低、错误时影响范围最大）应作为下一步验证步骤（通常是Design Sprint）的首要测试对象。

Sequence (45 minutes)

执行流程（45分钟）

Step 1: Draft the hypothesis (10-15 min)

步骤1：撰写假设初稿（10-15分钟）

The Decider drafts the canonical sentence by filling the 5 slots from prior sprint outputs. The team reviews, identifies vagueness, and revises until each slot is specific. This is the most important 15 minutes of the sprint.

Decider（决策者）利用之前冲刺产出的内容填充5个槽位，撰写标准规范的句子。团队进行评审，找出模糊内容并修改，直到每个槽位都明确具体。这是本次冲刺中最重要的15分钟。

Step 2: Build the scorecard (15-20 min)

步骤2：构建评分卡（15-20分钟）

Decompose the hypothesis into 5-7 assumptions. Score each. Identify the highest-risk one.

将假设拆解为5-7条子假设，为每条评分，找出风险最高的子假设。

Step 3: Why we believe / what could prove us wrong (5-10 min)

步骤3：撰写“我们为何相信”/“哪些因素会证明我们错误”（5-10分钟）

Bulleted lists, 3-5 each. The team writes both in parallel; the second list (proof-of-wrong) is the test of whether the team is holding the hypothesis with calibration.

各写3-5条带项目符号的要点。团队同步撰写这两部分内容；第二部分（证明错误的因素）用于检验团队是否对假设保持合理的置信度。

Step 4: Recommended next test (5 min)

步骤4：确定建议的下一步测试（5分钟）

The Decider names the next validation step: Design Sprint, customer research, experiment, etc. The recommended test should attack the highest-risk assumption from the scorecard.

Decider确定下一步验证步骤：Design Sprint、客户调研、实验等。建议的测试应针对评分卡中风险最高的假设。

Step 5: Ratification (1 min)

步骤5：批准（1分钟）

The Decider signs. The sprint ends.

Decider签署确认，本次冲刺结束。

Common Pitfalls

常见误区

Vague customer or problem. "Readers" or "frustrations" are not slots. The skill rejects them.
Non-falsifiable hypothesis. "We will succeed" is not a hypothesis. "If we help X with Y they will choose us" is. The skill enforces the structure.
Treating hypothesis as strategy doc. The hypothesis is a test target, not a strategic plan. The team's strategy decisions live in the Mini Manifesto and decision principles; the hypothesis is what you go test.
Skipping the scorecard. The hypothesis is half the value; the test plan (scorecard + recommended next test) is the other half. Without the scorecard, the hypothesis is wall art.
Softening to ratify. Teams will instinctively soften the hypothesis to make it less controversial. The skill counter-acts with the "would anyone push back" check.
Polishing later. The hypothesis must be ratified by end of Day 2. Polishing later means re-litigating; the sprint discipline collapses.

客户或问题表述模糊。“读者”或“痛点”这类表述不符合槽位要求，会被本技能驳回。
假设无法证伪。“我们会成功”不是有效的假设，“如果我们帮助X解决Y问题，他们会选择我们”才是。本技能会强制要求遵循正确结构。
将假设视为战略文档。假设是测试对象，而非战略规划。团队的战略决策记录在Mini Manifesto（迷你宣言）和决策原则中；假设是需要去验证的内容。
跳过评分卡。假设仅占价值的一半；测试计划（评分卡+建议的下一步测试）占另一半。没有评分卡，假设就只是摆设。
为获得批准而弱化假设。团队会本能地弱化假设以减少争议。本技能通过“是否有人会反对”的检查来应对这一问题。
稍后再完善。假设必须在第2天结束前获得批准。后续再完善意味着重新讨论，冲刺的纪律性会被打破。

Decider Role

Decider（决策者）的职责

The Decider's job during Founding Hypothesis:

Draft the canonical sentence (or co-draft with the PM).
Lead the revision pass; push back on vague slots.
Score scorecard assumptions with the team; supervote when confidence ratings are contested.
Name the recommended next validation step explicitly.
Ratify the hypothesis by end of Day 2 even if some slot wording is imperfect; further polishing happens by editing the scorecard, not the hypothesis.

在Founding Hypothesis环节中，Decider的职责如下：

撰写标准规范的句子（或与产品经理共同撰写）。
主导修改环节；对模糊的槽位提出异议。
与团队一起为评分卡中的假设评分；若置信度评分存在争议，拥有最终决定权。
明确指定建议的下一步验证步骤。
即使部分槽位表述不够完美，也要在第2天结束前批准假设；后续完善需通过修改评分卡完成，而非修改假设本身。

Canonical Sources

权威来源

Knapp, J., and Zeratsky, J. Click. Founding Hypothesis template and rationale.
Character Capital. "Foundation Sprint guide." Founding Hypothesis section.
Knapp, J., and Zeratsky, J. "Introducing the Foundation Sprint." Lenny's Newsletter. Founding Hypothesis structure with worked examples.

Knapp, J. 与 Zeratsky, J. 所著《Click》。Founding Hypothesis模板及理论依据。
Character Capital 所著《Foundation Sprint指南》中的Founding Hypothesis章节。
Knapp, J. 与 Zeratsky, J. 发表于Lenny's Newsletter的《Introducing the Foundation Sprint》。包含带实例的Founding Hypothesis结构说明。

Cross-Skill Usage

跨技能关联

Prerequisites:

tool-foundation-sprint-magic-lenses

. The top bet, backup, and decision rationale are the load-bearing inputs.

The skill inherits the Basics bundled artifact (target customer, important problem, competitors) and the Differentiation bundled artifact (chosen differentiators). All five hypothesis slots are derived from prior sprint outputs.

Next invocation outside the sprint: the recommended next validation step. Most commonly

tool-design-sprint-readiness

if a Design Sprint is the next test. Sometimes

pm-skills:measure-experiment-design

pm-skills:discover-interview-synthesis

if a non-sprint test is the right next move.

There is no formal bridge skill between Foundation Sprint and Design Sprint; the transition is narrative content in

_workflows/foundation-to-design.md

and in both user guides.

前置技能：

tool-foundation-sprint-magic-lenses

。核心方案、备选方案及决策依据是关键输入。

本技能继承Basics整合成果（目标客户、核心问题、竞品）和Differentiation整合成果（选定的差异化点）。假设的五个槽位均来自之前的冲刺产出。

冲刺结束后的下一步调用：建议的下一步验证步骤。若下一步是Design Sprint，最常用的是

tool-design-sprint-readiness

。若合适的下一步是非冲刺类测试，则有时会调用

pm-skills:measure-experiment-design

或

pm-skills:discover-interview-synthesis

。

Foundation Sprint与Design Sprint之间没有正式的过渡技能；过渡说明记录在

_workflows/foundation-to-design.md

及两份用户指南的叙述内容中。

Decider Checkpoint

Decider检查点

This skill ends with a Decider Checkpoint in

references/TEMPLATE.md

. The Decider ratifies the hypothesis sentence, the scorecard, and the recommended next test. Ratification closes the Foundation Sprint. Without ratification, the sprint output is incomplete and the team did not produce what it set out to produce.

本技能的结尾是

references/TEMPLATE.md

中的Decider检查点。Decider需批准假设句子、评分卡及建议的下一步测试。批准完成后，Foundation Sprint正式结束。若未获得批准，则冲刺产出不完整，团队未达成预期目标。