Every Idea Validation run ends in one of five verdicts: KILL, PIVOT, DEFER, CONDITIONAL GO, or GO. This page explains what each verdict means and how we decide. We will publish the real aggregate distribution — anonymised and dated — once our sample is large enough to be statistically meaningful. We won’t put numbers here before then.
The five verdicts
Idea Validation resolves to one of five outcomes. An honest validation process returns hard verdicts often — KILL is a normal outcome, not a formality. We will publish the real aggregate distribution here, anonymised and dated, once the sample is large enough to be meaningful.
Idea has a fatal flaw that cannot be pivoted around — the market doesn’t exist, unit economics are irreparably negative, or competition has already won. A large share of early, unvalidated ideas don’t survive structured validation, and a clear KILL early is far cheaper than discovering the same flaw after you build.
Core insight is valid but the execution path fails one or more lenses. A significant change to ICP, channel, or model is required.
Idea is sound but market timing, regulation, or conditions are premature. Specific reassessment triggers are defined.
Proceed only after resolving specific, measurable, time-bound conditions named in the report.
All 12 lenses pass. Market validated. Unit economics viable. Distribution path identifiable. Proceed with conviction.
The failure lenses
When a verdict turns out hard, these are the lenses that most often carry the failure. A single verdict may fire multiple lenses. We’ll publish how frequently each one triggers once the sample is large enough to report honestly.
Is the demand real, specific, and large enough — backed by evidence, not a top-line TAM figure?
Is there a defensible wedge incumbents and fast followers cannot easily replicate?
Do the numbers work — CAC against LTV at a price the target customer will actually pay?
Does the team have the domain insight and capability to execute this specific idea?
Are there regulatory, compliance, or legal barriers that change the viability of the idea?
Is there a credible path to the first hundred customers that doesn’t depend on paid ads alone?
Sectors we cover
Idea Validation evaluates ideas across these sectors. When we publish the aggregate distribution, the sector breakdown will be included — anonymised and dated.
Why we publish this
When we publish the aggregate distribution, it will be the simplest possible check on ourselves. If almost every verdict were GO, you’d know we were telling founders what they wanted to hear. An honest validation process returns hard verdicts often — KILL is a normal outcome, not a formality. We won’t adjust the data to look more encouraging, and we won’t publish numbers before the sample can support them. Read why honest validation kills most early ideas →
Every company in this space has an incentive to hide its error rate. We choose the opposite. The failure lenses are explained because founders considering Idea Validation deserve to know what the methodology surfaces — not just that we exist. If we get a verdict wrong, we issue a correction on the errata page and reflect it here accordingly.
If a published verdict contained a factual error, we correct it publicly and note the correction here. The correction log lives on the errata page. The verifier accountable for every verdict is named on the verifier page. There is no anonymous sign-off at ThriveFinity.
Methodology note
When we publish the aggregate distribution, it will be a public record, not marketing. The notes below explain exactly what will be counted, what will be excluded, and why.
A verdict is logged only when a complete Idea Validation run or QUAD analysis produces one of the five outcomes: GO, CONDITIONAL GO, PIVOT, KILL, or DEFER. Pulse runs that are abandoned before the 12-lens pass is complete are excluded. Internal test runs on synthetic briefs are excluded. Every entry in this log is a real submission from a real founder.
When published, the distribution will cover a clearly dated period. Earlier verdicts from the private beta (prior to December 2025) will not be included because scoring rubric versions differed and we do not publish data we cannot fully stand behind. Any cumulative totals will always be labelled as such.
No founder names, company names, or sector details precise enough to identify a submission will be published without explicit consent. Sector labels (e.g. "Fintech", "Health") are assigned by the verifier and reviewed for grouping accuracy before publication. If you submitted a brief and want your verdict excluded from any aggregate data, email verdicts@thrivefinity.uk.
Pulse is free. Submit a brief and get a structured verdict in minutes. Pro report — human-signed, 24h — from £149.