Review Boundary
This packet maps the Draft Stonk switching journey for the approved primary ICP: U.S. finance-curious social retail players who want a low-risk, social fantasy-stock game instead of real-money trading, prize contests, brokerage behavior, or investment advice.
- Does not create canonical research.
- Does not prescribe UI, architecture, implementation, deploy, or testing workflows.
- Does not use archived implementation files as active product requirements.
- Does not provide legal, securities, gambling, or investment advice.
- Does not create, modify, or suggest GitHub Actions workflows.
Executive Synthesis
Core switch: from unstructured market-opinion chatter into a visible, fair, replayable fantasy-stock game. The user is not primarily hiring Draft Stonk to become a better trader. They are hiring it to make a public market instinct comparable without putting money, reputation, or compliance-sensitive advice framing at risk.
Force summary: the strongest push is the gap between easy social stock claims and hard fair settlement. The strongest pull is the "fantasy football, but for stocks" metaphor, especially when a first pick turns into equal-dollar standings quickly. The strongest anxiety is trust that the game is not trading, advice, gambling, or too finance-heavy. The strongest habit is doing nothing or staying in group chats, screenshots, watchlists, spreadsheets, and familiar fantasy-sports rituals.
Confidence: Medium The ICP and competitive-analysis evidence are coherent, but Draft Stonk is pre-product and there is no active research/customer-feedback.md, interview transcript, or production behavior to confirm exact sequence or language.
Switching Timeline
First Thought Medium-high
A market story, stock claim, fantasy-draft frame, or group argument creates the feeling that a pick should be tested socially. The user thinks some version of "I called it" or "let's settle it."
Evidence:research/icp.md trigger events.
Passive Looking Medium
The user notices alternatives but has not committed to a new workflow. They may keep talking in group chats, use watchlists, glance at simulators, or rely on fantasy-sports mental models.
Evidence:research/icp.md alternatives and research/competitive-analysis.md substitution pressure.
Active Looking Medium
The user evaluates whether a tool can make stock picks fast, fair, social, and low-risk, with clear concept framing, fast first pick, equal-dollar comparison, credible price labeling, and no-money/no-advice framing.
Evidence:research/icp.md, README.md, concept.md, and simulator/fantasy-sports benchmarks.
Deciding Medium
The user decides to try Draft Stonk when the game feels immediately legible, low-friction, and safe to share. The final trigger is likely a fast first pick, compact draft, or group challenge that needs structure now.
Evidence: product promise, activation loop, and validation signals inresearch/icp.md.
Consuming Medium-high intended loop
The user lands, understands the metaphor, makes a first stock pick, completes a compact snake draft against simple bots, and sees equal-dollar standings with local/mock/delayed price copy.
Actual behavior confidence remains low-medium because the product is pre-product.Satisfaction Medium
The user judges whether Draft Stonk made the market opinion visible, comparable, and replayable. Satisfaction appears as replay, sharing, inviting friends, or group/club use; dissatisfaction appears when data feels fake, finance framing intimidates, or the outcome is not socially interesting.
Evidence: value drivers, post-adoption dynamics, share/replay questions, and trust-label needs.Four Forces Analysis
Push Of The Current Situation High pressure
- Stock opinions are easy to make but hard to compare fairly. High confidence; First Thought and Passive Looking.
- Generic paper-trading tools feel individual, brokerage-like, or education-heavy. High confidence; Passive Looking and Active Looking.
- Spreadsheets and group chats require manual rules, duplicate-pick prevention, return tracking, and reminders. High confidence; Passive Looking and Active Looking.
- Newer or casual users want to participate without financial exposure. Medium-high confidence; First Thought and Active Looking.
- Club or group organizers need an accessible activity that does not intimidate beginners. Medium confidence; First Thought and Active Looking.
Pull Of The New Solution High pull
- "Fantasy football, but for stocks" makes the concept immediately legible. High confidence; First Thought and Deciding.
- Equal-dollar standings turn market opinions into a fair comparison. Medium-high confidence; Deciding and Consuming.
- A compact snake draft creates a game ritual instead of a trading workflow. Medium-high confidence; Deciding and Consuming.
- No money, no prizes, no brokerage links, and no advice lower perceived risk. High confidence; Active Looking and Deciding.
- Replay, share, and invite moments promise social proof and rivalry. Medium confidence; Consuming and Satisfaction.
Anxiety Of The New Solution High anxiety
- The user may worry the product is secretly trading, advice, gambling, or too compliance-sensitive to share. High confidence; Active Looking and Deciding.
- Mock, local, delayed, or unclear price data can break trust. Medium-high confidence; Consuming and Satisfaction.
- Casual users may not understand tickers, equal-dollar returns, or why share price alone is not the scoring basis. Medium-high confidence; Active Looking and Consuming.
- The first loop may feel too finance-heavy compared with a casual fantasy game. Medium confidence; Active Looking and Deciding.
- A club or group organizer may worry about credibility, setup burden, or non-advisory framing. Medium confidence; Active Looking and Deciding.
Habit Of The Current Situation High habit
- Doing nothing is easy because the claim fades without cost. High confidence; Passive Looking and Satisfaction.
- Group chats, screenshots, Discord threads, and watchlists are free and familiar. High confidence; Passive Looking and Active Looking.
- Portfolio simulators and education games are established for users seeking practice or classroom structure. High confidence; Active Looking.
- Fantasy sports already owns the draft/standings ritual for many users. Medium confidence; Passive Looking and Deciding.
- Consumer users may resist another app habit unless the first result is worth sharing. Medium confidence; Consuming and Satisfaction.
Force Imbalances
| Imbalance | Stage | Implication | Intervention To Study | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Push strong, pull not yet proven | First Thought, Passive Looking | Users may be annoyed by unstructured stock debates but still default to chat because they do not know a stock-draft ritual exists. | Test whether the one-line metaphor plus a concrete first pick creates enough pull without lengthy explanation. | Medium |
| Pull strong, anxiety blocks | Active Looking, Deciding | The fantasy-stock idea may sound fun, but users may hesitate if it smells like advice, brokerage behavior, gambling, or unreliable data. | Make no-money/no-prize/no-advice and mock/delayed-data labels visible without making the experience feel legalistic. | Medium-high |
| Everything aligns, habit wins | Consuming, Satisfaction | A user may understand the concept and complete a first pick but still not return if the outcome lacks social payoff. | Measure whether standings create a share/invite target and whether replay feels different enough to matter. | Medium |
| Group value high, organizer burden blocks | Active Looking, Deciding | Clubs and friend groups concentrate demand, but one organizer may avoid setup if the product feels heavy or credibility-sensitive. | Study ultra-light private cohort setup after the solo loop is legible; keep club needs as acquisition evidence, not primary requirements. | Medium |
| Game appeal high, market-data trust weak | Consuming, Satisfaction | Mock or delayed prices may be acceptable for a prototype, but unclear data can make the result feel fake or unfair. | Test explicit data freshness labels and whether users still perceive equal-dollar standings as satisfying. | Medium |
Hiring Criteria
Functional Job
When I have a stock opinion or market argument, help me turn it into a fast, fair, low-risk competition so I can make picks, compare equal-dollar results, and see who was right without managing a portfolio, spreadsheet, brokerage account, or prize contest.
Social Job
Help me look sharp, playful, and competitively credible in front of friends, club members, or finance-curious peers without sounding like I am giving investment advice.
Emotional Job
Help me feel the thrill of calling a market move and beating other people while staying safe from the fear of losing real money, looking uninformed, or crossing into serious trading behavior.
Stage-Specific Success Criteria To Validate Later
| Stage | Validation Question | Why It Matters | Evidence Basis |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Thought | Can users repeat the product idea after one sentence? | The metaphor must create immediate pull before the stock-game category is familiar. | README.md, concept.md, research/icp.md |
| Active Looking | Can users tell why this is not a brokerage simulator, paid contest, or advice product? | Anxiety is a major blocker. | research/competitive-analysis.md, concept.md |
| Deciding | Can users make a first pick quickly without needing advanced ticker knowledge? | The first-loop bet depends on speed and mixed sophistication support. | research/icp.md, README.md |
| Consuming | Do users understand equal-dollar standings and trust the price-data label? | The scoring model is the "fairness" proof. | concept.md, research/icp.md |
| Satisfaction | Can users name someone they would challenge, share with, or invite? | The switch only compounds if the output creates social replay. | research/icp.md, concept.md |
Evidence Matrix
| Claim | Evidence Source | Evidence Type | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary ICP is U.S. finance-curious social retail players, with college clubs as an acquisition wedge. | research/icp.md | Approved research | High |
| The first product loop is land, pick, compact snake draft, equal-dollar standings, replay/share/invite. | README.md, concept.md | Active concept source | High |
| Current alternatives include watchlists, screenshots, spreadsheets, group chats, simulators, stock games, and doing nothing. | research/icp.md, research/competitive-analysis.md | Approved research | High |
| Generic simulators are usually more portfolio/trading/education-oriented than Draft Stonk's intended first loop. | research/competitive-analysis.md | Approved competitive research | High |
| The strongest value driver is social and emotional: making "I picked better than you" visible. | research/icp.md | Approved research/inference | Medium-high |
| No-money/no-prize/no-advice framing is necessary for trust and category clarity. | README.md, concept.md, research/competitive-analysis.md | Active concept plus approved research | High |
| Mock/local/delayed data can work for prototype scope but creates a trust risk if unclearly labeled. | README.md, concept.md, research/competitive-analysis.md | Active concept plus approved research | Medium-high |
| Casual users may need company-name and ticker support. | research/icp.md | Approved research | Medium-high |
| Replay and invite are likely satisfaction signals. | README.md, concept.md, research/icp.md | Active concept plus approved research | Medium |
| Exact stage durations and user language remain hypothesized. | Absence of research/customer-feedback.md; pre-product repository state in CLAUDE.md | Evidence gap | High |
Assumptions And Confidence Register
| Assumption | Current Confidence | Why | What Would Change It |
|---|---|---|---|
| The approved primary ICP remains the correct JTBD subject for this packet. | Medium-high | Stage 1 YAML approved the proposed scope. | User redirects the artifact to a different ICP or product path. |
| Active research and concept docs are sufficient for a preliminary working packet. | Medium | The sources cover pains, alternatives, triggers, first loop, and constraints. | Interview transcripts, usage data, or fresh market research contradict the inferred timeline. |
| Customer language should be marked inferred, not observed. | High | No active customer feedback artifact exists. | Direct interviews, survey responses, support logs, or product analytics are added. |
| Club and fantasy-sports segments should inform switching context without replacing the primary B2C subject. | Medium-high | research/icp.md explicitly assigns them wedge/secondary roles. | Stage 3 approval requests a narrower club-first or fantasy-sports-first artifact. |
| The first loop should be the switching proof point rather than full league/platform behavior. | High | README.md and concept.md define one canonical activation flow and defer full league platform scope. | Active product strategy changes the prototype bet. |
Source Coverage Gaps
- No active
research/customer-feedback.md; exact switching stories, quotes, and objections are inferred. - No production app, analytics, onboarding logs, or support data exists after the reset.
- Direct current-market competitor gaps remain documented in
research/competitive-analysis.md; this packet does not add fresh web research by approved scope. - No legal/compliance review is present; this packet only preserves the approved no-money/no-prize/no-advice posture and does not provide legal advice.
- The product has not yet tested whether users prefer fastest-to-first-pick or cleanest concept explanation.
- The product has not yet tested whether mock/local/delayed price data satisfies trust expectations.
Proposed Stage 3 Canonical Changes, Pending Artifact Approval
- Archive this working packet to
docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/research/_working/preliminary-jtbd-timeline-research.md. - Remove the active working packet from
research/_working/. - Write the approved canonical artifact to
research/journey-map-jtbd-timeline.md. - Convert
alignment/jtbd-timeline-draft-stonk.htmlfromreviewtoconfirmedwhile preserving the approval record.
No canonical artifact should be written before artifact approval.