Growth Secrets · Independent product building · Testing assumptions
The hardest assumption was adoption
I built an AI dispute-resolution MVP. The difficult question was whether people would agree to use it.
The idea
I thought of it as the internet's small claims court: a product that could take a dispute from initial submissions through to a reasoned outcome. I used AI to help develop the product and embedded AI into the experience itself.
What the MVP taught me
In my testing, the AI could interpret both parties' positions and produce sensible reasoning. That showed technical promise, but it did not establish that the product would be adopted or that its decisions would be enforceable.
The assumption that mattered
Conversations with lawyers and people with disputes made the practical friction clearer. Both parties would need to agree to the process, trust it and be comfortable with its legal implications. Potential changes of jurisdiction added further friction. Improving the model would not resolve those questions.
Changing direction
I moved away from AI arbitration and explored a more conciliation-based product. I had built working software, but the commercial and adoption assumptions were not strong enough to justify continuing with the original proposition.
The growth principle
Test the assumption that could make the idea unworkable. A convincing demonstration can answer whether something can be built while leaving the most important question unanswered: will people choose to use it?
Discuss a similar challenge ↗