Draft Stonk JTBD Timeline

Alignment date: 2026-06-18 | Alignment status: confirmed | Skill: jtbd-timeline | Stage: 3 canonical artifact

Confirmed status: This page is current for the completed JTBD timeline alignment cycle. The approved canonical artifact is research/journey-map-jtbd-timeline.md. Later research can amend this page only by archiving this confirmed record first and highlighting the amendment.

Summary

The approved canonical artifact maps Draft Stonk's switch from unstructured market-opinion chatter to a low-risk fantasy-stock drafting game. It identifies the six Moesta/Switch timeline stages, four forces, force imbalances, hiring criteria, evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source coverage gaps, and proposed Stage 3 canonical file changes.

Evidence is limited to approved active research and concept docs: research/icp.md, research/competitive-analysis.md, README.md, concept.md, and CLAUDE.md. Customer-language claims remain labeled as inferred because there is no active customer-feedback artifact.

Artifact Overview

Area	Preliminary Finding	Confidence
Core switch	From unstructured stock claims in chats, watchlists, spreadsheets, and simulators to a visible, fair, replayable fantasy-stock game.	Medium
Strongest push	Stock opinions are socially common but hard to compare fairly before the claim fades.	High
Strongest pull	The "fantasy football, but for stocks" metaphor plus equal-dollar standings creates a clear game promise.	Medium-high
Strongest anxiety	Users need to trust that the product is not real-money trading, advice, gambling, or unreliable market-data theater.	High
Strongest habit	Doing nothing, staying in group chats, or using familiar screenshots, watchlists, spreadsheets, simulators, and fantasy-sports rituals.	High

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
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
Exact stage durations and user language remain hypothesized.	Absence of `research/customer-feedback.md`; pre-product repo state in `CLAUDE.md`	Evidence gap	High

Assumptions And Confidence

Assumption	Current Confidence	Why	What Would Change It
The approved primary ICP remains the correct JTBD subject.	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 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, surveys, support logs, or product analytics are added.
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.	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; the packet preserves the no-money/no-prize/no-advice posture and does not provide legal advice.
The product has not tested fastest-to-first-pick versus cleanest concept explanation, or whether mock/local/delayed price data satisfies trust expectations.

Confirmed Canonical Changes

Archived working packet docs/history/archive/2026-06-18/103601/research/_working/preliminary-jtbd-timeline-research.md

Canonical artifact research/journey-map-jtbd-timeline.md

Archived review page docs/history/archive/2026-06-18/103601/alignment/jtbd-timeline-draft-stonk.html

Current review page alignment/jtbd-timeline-draft-stonk.html

Stage 3 archived and removed the working packet, wrote the approved canonical artifact, and converted this page to confirmed after final artifact approval.

Canonical JTBD Artifact Preview

StatusCanonical Stage 3 artifact approved from Stage 2 working packet.

Date2026-06-18

MethodologyMoesta/Switch JTBD Timeline

Evidence ScopeActive research and concept docs only

Based Onresearch/icp.md, research/competitive-analysis.md, README.md, concept.md, CLAUDE.md

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

Minutes to days around a salient story; seasonal around fantasy drafts; semester-timed for clubs.

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

Days to weeks; can collapse quickly if a group wants an immediate challenge.

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

Minutes to a session for consumer trial; longer for club organizer evaluation.

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

Seconds to minutes for a casual user; days for a club pilot.

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 in research/icp.md.

Consuming Medium-high intended loop

One short session; replay check happens after standings feel meaningful.

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

Same day for first impression; days to weeks for replay/retention.

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.html from review to confirmed while preserving the approval record.

No canonical artifact should be written before artifact approval.

Approval Record

alignment_status: confirmed

Confirmation date: 2026-06-18

Confirmed artifacts: research/journey-map-jtbd-timeline.md; alignment/jtbd-timeline-draft-stonk.html

Archived sources: docs/history/archive/2026-06-18/103601/research/_working/preliminary-jtbd-timeline-research.md; docs/history/archive/2026-06-18/103601/alignment/jtbd-timeline-draft-stonk.html

Approval source: prompts/jtbd-timeline/skill-prompt-20260618-103601-stage3-finalize.md

Gate	Approved Decision	Notes
Artifact completeness	Approve preliminary packet	No notes.
Evidence coverage	Evidence coverage sufficient	No notes.
Assumptions/confidence	Accept confidence caveats	No notes.
Canonical file changes	Approve proposed Stage 3 canonical changes	Target path: `research/journey-map-jtbd-timeline.md`. Archive source: `research/_working/preliminary-jtbd-timeline-research.md`.
Artifact finalization	Approve finalization on next agent pass	Target artifact: Stage 3 canonical JTBD timeline artifact.

Final Compiled Response YAML

alignment_page: alignment/jtbd-timeline-draft-stonk.html
approval_status: ready-for-agent-review
answers:
  - section: "Approval Gates"
    gate_type: "artifact completeness"
    status: "answered"
    answer: "Approve preliminary packet"
    notes: ""
  - section: "Approval Gates"
    gate_type: "evidence coverage"
    status: "answered"
    answer: "Evidence coverage sufficient"
    notes: ""
  - section: "Approval Gates"
    gate_type: "assumptions/confidence"
    status: "answered"
    answer: "Accept confidence caveats"
    notes: ""
  - section: "Approval Gates"
    gate_type: "canonical file changes"
    status: "answered"
    answer: "Approve proposed Stage 3 canonical changes"
    notes: ""
    target_path: "research/journey-map-jtbd-timeline.md"
    archive_source: "research/_working/preliminary-jtbd-timeline-research.md"
  - section: "Approval Gates"
    gate_type: "artifact finalization"
    status: "answered"
    answer: "Approve finalization on next agent pass"
    notes: ""
    target_artifact: "Stage 3 canonical JTBD timeline artifact"
section_feedback:
  []