The 6 Business Signals Pack (Evidence-Backed Reddit Validation)

If you’ve ever spent a weekend reading Reddit threads, you know the problem:

• You can always find “proof” for the idea you already want to build.
• You can’t tell if people would actually pay—or if they’re just venting.
• You struggle to package messy qualitative data into something you can defend to a co‑founder, your team, or yourself.

This guide gives you a repeatable framework to turn Reddit chaos into an evidence‑backed validation brief. It’s designed for builders and early founders who fear the worst outcome: shipping something nobody wants.

[IMAGE NEEDED: A clean 1‑page diagram showing the 6 signals in a hexagon, plus “Evidence Pack” underneath and “Anti‑examples” on the side.]

Who This Is For

This guide is for you if you:

• Are deciding what to build next and want proof, not vibes.
• Have an idea but are worried you’re cherry‑picking validation.
• Need a defensible “evidence packet” for a co‑founder, advisor, or investor.
• Want to move fast without lying to yourself.

If you only want “new ideas,” stop here. The goal isn’t inspiration. The goal is reducing risk.

The Validation Trap: Confirmation Bias Disguised as Research

Reddit is brutally honest—but it’s also dangerously easy to misuse:

• Threads are fragmented.
• Context is missing.
• The loudest comments aren’t always buyers.
• You can curate quotes to support any narrative.

The result is a familiar failure mode:

1. You start with a hypothesis.
2. You collect screenshots that feel convincing.
3. You build.
4. Reality disagrees.

The fix is simple but uncomfortable:

• Treat every opportunity like a case in court.
• Require traceable sources for every key claim.
• Actively seek counter‑evidence.

The 6 Business Signals Pack (What You Must Prove)

A good opportunity isn’t “people complain.” A good opportunity is a pattern where the buyer, pain, and willingness to pay are consistent—and where you understand the blockers to adoption.

The 6 Business Signals Pack is a structured brief that forces you to answer the same questions every time:

1. Persona (who’s speaking, and do they matter?)
2. Pain (what hurts, how much, and why?)
3. WTP (willingness to pay)
4. Workaround (what they do today to survive)
5. Resistance (why they won’t switch)
6. Desire (what “better” looks like in their language)

For each signal, you attach an Evidence Pack: click‑through quotes + permalinks.

Signal 1: Persona (Who’s Speaking?)

Why it matters

If you can’t identify who’s speaking, you can’t weight the signal. A complaint from a hobbyist is not the same as a complaint from a buyer with budget.

What to look for

Persona evidence usually shows up as:

• Role and seniority (“I’m the ops manager…”, “I run a small agency…”)
• Environment (“at a 20‑person startup…”, “in healthcare…”, “for my clients…”)
• Constraints (“compliance…”, “procurement…”, “team adoption…”, “budget approval…”)

Questions your brief must answer

• Are they the buyer, user, or influencer?
• What context makes their pain expensive?
• Do they have authority and budget?

Evidence Pack format

• Quote: “I manage 12 client accounts and…”
• Link: permalink to the post/comment

[IMAGE NEEDED: Screenshot of a highlighted Reddit comment that includes role/context, with a callout “Persona evidence”.]

Signal 2: Pain (What Hurts, and How Much?)

Why it matters

High‑value products don’t win because the idea is clever. They win because the pain is expensive—time, money, risk, or reputation.

What to look for

Strong pain signals include:

• Specific tasks that repeatedly fail (“every sprint”, “every month-end”)
• Emotional intensity plus concrete costs (“I hate this because it wastes 4 hours a week”)
• Clear dissatisfaction with existing tools (“we tried X; it didn’t work because…”)

Bad signals (low conversion)

• Generic frustration without a workflow (“this sucks”)
• One‑off edge cases
• Complaints with no consequence

Questions your brief must answer

• What job are they trying to get done?
• What breaks, how often, and what does it cost?
• Why do existing tools fail in this context?

Signal 3: WTP (Willingness to Pay)

Why it matters

The fastest way to waste months is to validate “interest” instead of purchasing intent.

WTP is not just “I would pay.” It also appears as:

• “We already pay for X, but…”
• “I’d pay $Y if it solved…”
• “This is too expensive for what it does.”
• “My team would buy this if…”

Practical WTP proxies

Look for:

• Budget mentions ($/month, $/seat, annual contracts)
• Comparisons to existing spend (“cheaper than hiring”)
• ROI framing (“it saves us X hours/week”)
• Procurement talk (“my manager won’t approve unless…”)

Questions your brief must answer

• Who would pay, not just use?
• What do they pay today (tools, labor, agencies)?
• Where is the price sensitivity?

[IMAGE NEEDED: Simple table showing WTP signal types: explicit, implied, negative (too expensive), alternative spend.]

Signal 4: Workaround (What They Do Today)

Why it matters

Workarounds are one of the strongest MVP signals:

If people are “building a janky process” to survive, the pain is real and the value is tangible.

What to look for

• Spreadsheets stitched to automation
• Manual copying/pasting between tools
• Scripts, browser extensions, Zapier/Make chains
• “We built an internal tool”
• Hiring humans to do repetitive work

Questions your brief must answer

• What is the current workflow (step-by-step)?
• Where is the most painful step?
• Which workaround indicates urgency vs preference?

Signal 5: Resistance (Why They Won’t Switch)

Why it matters

Most “great ideas” fail not because the pain isn’t real, but because switching is hard.

Resistance is anything that blocks adoption:

• Migration friction (data, workflow, integrations)
• Trust and privacy concerns
• Compliance and security requirements
• Habit and team change management
• “Good enough” incumbents

Questions your brief must answer

• What’s the biggest reason they would not buy?
• What would need to be true for them to switch?
• Which blockers are product problems vs positioning problems?

[IMAGE NEEDED: A simple “Resistance checklist” graphic: migration, trust, compliance, habit, integrations.]

Signal 6: Desire (What “Better” Looks Like)

Why it matters

Desire captures the user’s language for the ideal outcome. It informs:

• positioning and messaging
• feature prioritization
• onboarding and “aha” moments

What to look for

• “I wish there was a tool that…”
• “If this could just…”
• “All I want is…”
• “The ideal workflow would be…”

The common mistake

Don’t treat desire as a feature checklist. Treat it as outcome language.

Questions your brief must answer

• What outcome do they want (not what feature)?
• How do they describe success?
• What tradeoffs are they willing to accept?

The Evidence Pack (Make Every Claim Verifiable)

Evidence is the difference between:

• “I think this is real.”
• “Here are 12 independent sources saying the same thing.”

Evidence Pack rules

• Every key claim must include at least one source link.
• Prefer direct quotes over paraphrases.
• Capture both the quote and the permalink.
• Include enough context to avoid misleading interpretation.

Minimum viable evidence thresholds

For an early-stage bet, a reasonable starting bar is:

• Pain: 5+ sources describing the same workflow pain
• Workaround: 3+ sources showing coping behavior
• WTP: 2+ sources showing explicit or implied budget signals
• Resistance: 2+ sources showing adoption blockers

If you can’t find WTP and Workarounds, treat it as a warning.

Anti-Examples (Devil’s Advocate Built In)

If you want to avoid building the wrong thing, you must also collect the “no” cases:

• “I don’t have this problem.”
• “We solved this with X.”
• “This isn’t worth paying for.”
• “I wouldn’t trust a tool like this.”

Anti‑examples help you:

• find segment boundaries (who it’s for, who it’s not for)
• avoid overgeneralizing a niche complaint
• pre‑write objections and positioning

Minimum bar

For every opportunity, collect at least 2 anti‑examples.

[IMAGE NEEDED: Screenshot of a “no thanks / solved already” comment annotated as an anti-example.]

Turn Signals into a One-Page Validation Brief (Template)

Copy/paste this template into a doc:

1) Opportunity (one sentence)

What recurring pain cluster exists, for whom, in what context?

2) Persona

• Buyer/user:
• Context:
• Evidence links:

3) Pain

• What breaks + cost:
• Frequency:
• Evidence links:

4) Workaround

• Current workflow:
• Coping behaviors:
• Evidence links:

5) WTP

• Current spend:
• Budget / price sensitivity:
• Evidence links:

6) Resistance

• Switching blockers:
• Trust/compliance concerns:
• Evidence links:

7) Desire

• Ideal outcome language:
• Evidence links:

8) Anti-examples

• Not a problem / already solved:
• Not worth paying / trust issues:
• Evidence links:

9) Next smallest experiment (48 hours)

What is the smallest test that produces new evidence?

What “Good” Looks Like (Quick Self-Check)

Before you build anything, you should be able to answer:

• Can I show a skeptical person evidence links for every major claim?
• Do I have WTP evidence beyond “sounds cool”?
• Do workarounds show real intent (not casual complaints)?
• Do I understand the top 1–2 adoption blockers?
• Do I have anti‑examples that define segment boundaries?

If the answer is “no,” that’s not failure. That’s a signal: validate next, don’t build.

Next Step

Read Guide #2 next: a 30‑minute, step‑by‑step workflow to apply this pack on a real Reddit terrain and produce a decision-ready brief.