review
visual
framework findings gate
JTBD Timeline Findings - AFPS Tracker
This review page renders the Stage 2 JTBD Timeline working packet for AFPS Tracker. The output is non-canonical until the compiled YAML from this page approves writing research/afps-tracker/journey-map-jtbd-timeline.md.
Scope And Evidence
This packet maps the hypothesized switch from manual AFPS state reconstruction to AFPS Tracker for the approved primary ICP: AFPS power users and AI workflow operators who run alignment-first, prototype-second research workflows in repo-local files.
The approved scope excludes exec-loop-tracker, development execution tracking, generic PM replacement, active recommendation engines, and broad research repository workflows. The analysis stays at journey and switching behavior level; it does not prescribe UI, architecture, or implementation.
| Source | Role In This Packet | Coverage |
|---|---|---|
research/afps-tracker/icp.md | Primary ICP, pains, trigger events, current alternatives, evaluation behavior, and value language. | Strong for hypothesized customer profile; no direct switching interviews. |
research/afps-tracker/idea-brief.md | Product boundary, passive v1 constraint, source-state model, non-goals, and AFPS-specific wedge. | Strong for intended product scope. |
research/afps-tracker/competitive-analysis.md | Substitute landscape, source-native baseline, trust/provenance wedge, and monetization caveats. | Strong for adjacent alternatives; direct AFPS demand remains unproven. |
research/.progress.yaml | Live product-path state showing AFPS Tracker and exec-loop-tracker as separate active concepts. | Strong for repo-state example; not user telemetry. |
Executive Finding
The likely switching trigger is not "I need another dashboard." It is the moment an AFPS operator can no longer cheaply reconstruct branch state from source files after research fans out across product paths, working packets, alignment pages, and task history.
AFPS Tracker is hired if it preserves source fidelity while making branch state, stage progression, evidence refs, and approval provenance visible without manual upkeep.
The strongest force driving change is scattered state across research/.progress.yaml, product-path research files, alignment pages, and task docs. The strongest force resisting change is trust: the operator already has canonical files, and any tracker that summarizes, writes, or abstracts them must prove it will not drift from or corrupt the workflow source of truth.
Switching Timeline
| Stage | Core State |
|---|---|
| First Thought | Scattered state becomes visible. |
| Passive Looking | Manual reconstruction remains tolerable. |
| Active Looking | The operator compares source-native and adjacent alternatives. |
| Deciding | Trust and source fidelity determine whether the switch happens. |
| Consuming | A real repo scan proves or breaks confidence. |
| Satisfaction | Repeat use depends on saved time and no drift. |
| Stage | Customer State | Duration | Key Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Thought | The operator notices that AFPS state is technically present but scattered. Catalyzing events are multi-path research, session restart or compaction, or needing to explain why a branch is active, deferred, archived, or promoted. | Minutes to days after branch sprawl appears. | ICP trigger events rank multiple product/research branches, session restarts, and decision provenance needs as urgent; idea brief says rich branch state is scattered across YAML, markdown, logs, and alignment pages. |
| Passive Looking | The operator tolerates manual reconstruction with editor search, markdown previews, alignment/index.html, .progress.yaml, and agent rereads. They notice adjacent tools but do not yet commit because source files still work and the workflow is early. | Days to weeks while one or two paths are manageable. | ICP current alternatives list manual repo navigation, .progress.yaml, alignment/index.html, generic PM tools, and ad hoc memory files; competitive synthesis identifies native AFPS artifacts as the strongest substitute. |
| Active Looking | The operator deliberately compares ways to reduce repeated reconstruction: native file reading, ad hoc status docs, generic workspaces, product/research tools, AI agents, and agent-control planes. Criteria become source fidelity, low upkeep, evidence links, stage/branch abstraction, and write-back trust. | A focused evaluation session or repeated moments of frustration. | ICP discovery/evaluation says users test on existing repos with real AFPS artifacts and inspect active_paths, product_paths[], statuses, evidence refs, and alignment pages; competitive synthesis says AFPS Tracker must beat manual repo reconstruction first. |
| Deciding | The operator chooses only if AFPS Tracker reflects canonical state without duplicate entry and shows why each path exists. A read-only or read-mostly first experience lowers risk; write-back remains gated until trust is earned. | One successful dogfood/prototype trial. | Competitive synthesis identifies passive, source-native branch map and evidence-linked continuity as whitespace; both ICP and competitive synthesis flag write-back trust as high risk. |
| Consuming | The first experience is a real AFPS repo scan: the operator sees active and parallel paths, current pipeline stage, source evidence refs, and approval state without opening several files. Mismapped source state breaks trust quickly. | Same day as first use. | ICP likely aha moment is seeing a branch tree and pipeline-stage view that correctly reflects repo state without manual data entry; progress manifest currently contains both research/afps-tracker and research/exec-loop-tracker. |
| Satisfaction | The operator judges whether the switch saved reconstruction time, improved confidence, and stayed subordinate to canonical files. Repeat use depends on correct parsing across future skill runs and no drift from workflow state. | After several AFPS sessions or product-path changes. | ICP stated value drivers include seeing every branch without opening five files, knowing why paths are active/deferred/archived/promoted, resuming without rediscovery, and preserving evidence trail. |
Four Forces Analysis
| Force | Intensity | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Push | High | Scattered state, branch sprawl, context loss, provenance pressure. |
| Pull | Medium-high | Source-native map, passive fidelity, evidence-linked continuity. |
| Anxiety | High | Misread source state, write-back risk, parallel board risk, WTP unknown. |
| Habit | High | Native files are free, familiar, and already adopted. |
Push Of Current Situation
| Force | Intensity | Stage Most Active | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scattered workflow state across YAML, markdown, HTML review pages, and task docs makes repeated reconstruction slow. | High | First Thought, Active Looking | ICP pain map rates scattered state high severity/high frequency; idea brief names the same artifact spread as the core problem hypothesis. |
| Branch sprawl makes portfolio reasoning harder as research creates multiple product paths or parked concepts. | High | First Thought | ICP pain map rates branch sprawl high severity; research/.progress.yaml currently lists both AFPS Tracker and exec-loop-tracker as active paths. |
| AI session compaction/restart and handoff force agents and humans to rediscover context. | Medium-high | First Thought, Passive Looking | ICP trigger events and frustrations include session restart, compaction, and repeated rediscovery. |
| Decision provenance becomes difficult when future self, collaborator, or client asks why a path was chosen, parked, or rejected. | High | Active Looking, Deciding | ICP pain map rates weak decision provenance high severity; competitive synthesis says evidence-linked state continuity is a market gap. |
| Generic PM or notes tools create duplicate manual state that can drift from canonical AFPS files. | Medium | Passive Looking, Active Looking | ICP alternatives and competitive synthesis describe Notion, Linear, Trello, and ad hoc status files as mirror surfaces with drift risk. |
Pull Of New Solution
| Force | Intensity | Stage Most Active | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| A source-native branch and pipeline map can answer "where is each path and why?" without opening several artifacts. | High | Active Looking, Deciding | ICP stated value drivers and likely aha moment emphasize branch tree, pipeline-stage view, evidence references, and no manual entry. |
| Passive read-through of canonical files preserves fidelity while improving scanability. | High | Deciding | Idea brief defines AFPS Tracker as passive, faithful visualization over emitted workflow state; competitive synthesis says the strongest gap is a passive, source-linked portfolio map. |
| Evidence-linked continuity can make AFPS state more trustworthy than one-off AI summaries. | Medium-high | Deciding, Consuming | Competitive synthesis says AI agents can summarize state but users still need provenance; AFPS Tracker can link status directly to source files and approval records. |
| Dogfooding on real AFPS artifacts gives the operator immediate proof or disproof. | Medium-high | Consuming | ICP says evaluation happens on an existing repo with real AFPS artifacts; primary ICP includes current or near-term AFPS operators. |
| Future managed hosting could reduce operational burden for users who do not want to self-host. | Medium | Satisfaction | Competitive synthesis records OSS core plus managed SaaS as an approved monetization hypothesis, not yet validated. |
Anxiety Of New Solution
| Force | Intensity | Stage Most Active | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| The tracker might misread source state and create false confidence. | High | Deciding, Consuming | ICP says users inspect whether the tracker faithfully maps active_paths, product_paths[], statuses, evidence refs, and alignment pages. |
| Write-back could corrupt canonical workflow files or weaken approval gates. | High | Deciding | ICP and competitive synthesis both flag write-back trust as high risk; competitive synthesis recommends read-only or read-mostly first experience. |
| A tracker could become another manual board or parallel source of truth. | High | Active Looking, Satisfaction | ICP post-purchase dynamics say the tool must remain subordinate to the AFPS workflow and adoption risk rises if it becomes a manual board. |
| Direct WTP and market size are unproven beyond dogfooding. | Medium-high | Deciding | ICP and competitive synthesis both state direct AFPS adoption and willingness to pay are unproven. |
| Broadening into generic PM, research repository, or execution tracking could dilute the wedge. | Medium | Active Looking | Approved idea brief and competitive synthesis exclude generic PM replacement and development execution tracking. |
Habit Of Current Situation
| Force | Intensity | Stage Most Active | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Native files are free, source-faithful, and already adopted. | High | Passive Looking, Deciding | Competitive synthesis identifies native AFPS artifacts as the strongest substitute and zero-price benchmark. |
Operators are comfortable with markdown, YAML, local repos, rg, and AI agents. | High | Passive Looking | ICP sophistication section says the audience is highly comfortable with markdown, YAML, local repositories, command-line search, and AI coding agents. |
alignment/index.html and .progress.yaml already provide partial visibility. | Medium | Passive Looking | ICP alternatives list both as current options; Stage 1 journey-map page confirmed these files exist. |
| Asking an AI agent to reread files may feel sufficient for occasional status questions. | Medium | Passive Looking, Active Looking | Competitive synthesis says AI coding agents can reconstruct context on demand and pressure AFPS Tracker to be faster, persistent, and more verifiable. |
| Single-path workflows do not create enough pain to justify switching. | Medium | Satisfaction | ICP says users defer if they only run one product path at a time or if AFPS itself is not part of their workflow. |
Force Imbalances
| Imbalance | Stage | Implication | Intervention |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strong push, partial pull: branch sprawl hurts, but native files still work. | First Thought, Passive Looking | The operator may complain but keep using source files until reconstruction becomes repeated and costly. | Prove a source-linked map answers status faster than opening .progress.yaml, alignment pages, and task docs. |
| Pull blocked by anxiety: source-native view is attractive, but trust is unproven. | Deciding, Consuming | The product must earn trust before write-back or higher automation. | Start with read-only/read-mostly behavior, explicit source links, and visible provenance. |
| Habit wins for simple repos. | Passive Looking, Satisfaction | AFPS Tracker is weakest when there is only one path or low artifact volume. | Validate against multi-path repositories and avoid overfitting to simple workflows. |
| Pull weakened by unclear WTP. | Deciding | The user may like the concept but not pay unless saved time or client-facing provenance is concrete. | Measure reconstruction time saved and confidence gained in dogfooding/design-partner sessions. |
Scope anxiety appears when exec-loop-tracker or generic PM expectations enter. | Active Looking | Users may expect execution tracking or broad workflow management unless boundaries are explicit. | Keep AFPS Tracker framed as research-stage workflow-state visibility; route execution tracking separately. |
Hiring Criteria
Functional Job
Help an AFPS operator understand and resume the state of a research-stage product portfolio by reading canonical AFPS workflow artifacts and showing product paths, statuses, pipeline stages, evidence refs, and approval provenance without manual duplication.
Social Job
Help the operator look rigorous and in control when explaining why a product path is active, deferred, archived, revisit-candidate, promoted, or out of scope to future self, collaborators, clients, or other AI agents.
Emotional Job
Replace the feeling of "I have to rediscover this whole repo again" with confidence that the source state is visible, current, and reviewable.
Minimum Switching Conditions
- The user has at least two meaningful product paths, parked concepts, or research branches.
- The user has to answer state/provenance questions more than once across sessions.
- The tracker can parse canonical files accurately enough that the user trusts it more than an AI summary.
- The first useful view is generated without manual data entry.
- Write-back is absent, optional, or explicitly approval-gated until read-only trust is established.
Journey Risks
| Risk | Where It Appears | Why It Matters | Evidence Basis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parser fidelity risk | Deciding, Consuming | A wrong branch map destroys trust immediately. | ICP evaluation criteria; competitive synthesis trust/provenance lessons. |
| Low-urgency risk | Passive Looking | Single-path workflows may not feel enough pain. | ICP deferral condition and trigger-event ranking. |
| WTP risk | Deciding, Satisfaction | Adjacent paid categories do not prove AFPS Tracker budget. | ICP WTP caveats; competitive synthesis pricing caveats. |
| Scope drift risk | Active Looking | Generic PM/research/execution expectations would expand beyond the approved wedge. | Idea brief non-goals; approved competitive scope. |
| Manual-board risk | Satisfaction | If users maintain state twice, adoption fails. | ICP post-purchase dynamics and alternatives analysis. |
Evidence Matrix
| Claim | Evidence Source | Evidence Type | Inference | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The first switching trigger is multi-path or multi-artifact state sprawl, not generic project tracking. | research/afps-tracker/icp.md; research/afps-tracker/idea-brief.md; research/.progress.yaml | Repo artifact and approved research | Trigger events and current active paths show branch-state complexity is central. | High |
| Native AFPS artifacts are the strongest current substitute. | research/afps-tracker/competitive-analysis.md; ICP alternatives | Approved competitive synthesis and repo artifact | The product must outperform manual source reconstruction while preserving fidelity. | High |
| Trust around source parsing and write-back is the biggest anxiety. | ICP pain map and post-purchase dynamics; competitive synthesis | Approved research synthesis | Users will reject a tracker that corrupts source files or becomes a parallel board. | High |
| Read-only or read-mostly first value is the lowest-risk adoption path. | Competitive synthesis; idea brief passive v1 constraint | Inference from approved research | Passive source visibility addresses the strongest push while deferring write-back anxiety. | Medium-high |
| AFPS Tracker WTP remains unproven. | ICP WTP section; competitive synthesis source gaps | Approved research caveat | Pricing/package decisions need later monetization or design-partner validation. | High |
| AI agents can substitute for occasional state reconstruction but not persistent reviewable state. | Competitive synthesis; ICP frustrations | Inference from adjacent alternatives | Persistent source-linked mapping must be faster and more verifiable than asking an agent to reread files. | Medium |
exec-loop-tracker should remain excluded from this journey. | Idea brief; research/.progress.yaml; approved framework-selection YAML | Approved scope and repo artifact | Development execution tracking is a separate active concept and would change the journey. | High |
Assumptions And Source Gaps
Assumptions
| Assumption | Status | Confidence | What Would Change It |
|---|---|---|---|
| AFPS operators have enough repeated state-reconstruction pain to switch. | Hypothesized from repo artifacts and ICP | Medium | Dogfooding shows raw files plus agent rereads are sufficient. |
| Multi-path state is the critical urgency threshold. | Evidence-backed but not user-tested | Medium-high | Users report high pain even in single-path workflows, or no extra pain in multi-path workflows. |
| Source fidelity matters more than dashboard polish. | Evidence-backed by ICP/competitive synthesis | High | User tests show users prefer broad PM-style features over exact AFPS parsing. |
| Write-back should wait until read-only trust is earned. | Inference from trust risk | Medium-high | Users demand editing state as the first value moment and accept approval gates. |
| Studios/fractional consultants may have stronger commercial urgency if they adopt AFPS-like workflows. | Adjacent ICP hypothesis | Medium | Interviews show they do not use repo-local research workflows or do not value provenance. |
| OSS core plus managed SaaS is plausible packaging but not part of this journey proof. | Approved monetization hypothesis | Medium | Monetization research identifies a different preferred package or no WTP. |
Source Coverage Gaps
- No direct AFPS user switching interviews or observed switching stories.
- No measured time spent reconstructing AFPS state from source files.
- No prototype test proving a passive map creates the predicted aha moment.
- No parser fidelity audit across historical AFPS artifact versions.
- No direct WTP evidence for AFPS Tracker.
- No evidence yet that external AFPS users exist in enough volume beyond dogfooding.
- No separate journey research for
exec-loop-tracker; it remains out of scope.
Proposed File Changes
| Path | Action | Timing |
|---|---|---|
research/afps-tracker/journey-map-jtbd-timeline.md | Create canonical JTBD Timeline intermediate from the approved working packet. | Only after final compiled artifact approval YAML. |
research/afps-tracker/_working/preliminary-jtbd-timeline-research.md | Archive then remove active working packet. | Only after final compiled artifact approval YAML. |
alignment/journey-map-afps-tracker.html | Confirm/archive this framework findings review state while preserving approval record. | Only after final compiled artifact approval YAML. |
Approval Gates
Timeline Accuracy
Approve whether the six-stage switching timeline is sufficient for the pre-product JTBD intermediate.
Required question
Four Forces And Hiring Criteria
Approve whether the force analysis and hiring criteria correctly describe the switch dynamics.
Required question
Evidence And Completeness
Approve whether the hypothesized pre-product evidence is sufficient for this intermediate.
Required question
Proposed Canonical File Change
Approve whether the parent may write the canonical JTBD intermediate after this page's YAML is consumed.
Required question
Compile Responses
Compile approval YAML after answering the required gates, or use section feedback controls above for partial revision requests.
No responses compiled yet.