Reading the evidence honestly

Separating what people said from what it means, and noticing when you are hearing what you hoped for.

What is it?

After the interviews, you have to decide what they actually showed. That means separating three things:

Facts — what they did, with dates and numbers Opinions — what they said they think or would do Your interpretation — what you concluded

Only the first is evidence.

Why does a founder care?

Because confirmation bias is at its strongest here. You have invested weeks, you want a particular answer, and interview notes are ambiguous enough to support almost any reading.

The discipline of writing 'fact' or 'opinion' beside each line is unglamorous and catches an enormous amount of self-deception.

Example

From one interview:

'Yeah, that's a real pain. We spend ages on it every week. I'd definitely use something like that.'

Split it up:

  • 'That's a real pain' — opinion, and possibly politeness
  • 'We spend ages on it every week' — vague. Ages is not a number. Follow up.
  • 'I'd definitely use something like that' — opinion about the future, close to worthless

    • Now the same person, later:

    'Last Friday it took me about three hours. I tried a tool last year, paid £29 a month for four months, then stopped because I had to re-enter everything manually.'

  • Three hours last Friday — fact
  • Paid £29/month for four months — fact, and it is willingness to pay, already demonstrated
  • Stopped because of manual entry — fact, and a direct product requirement

    • The second passage is worth more than fifty of the first. And notice: the same person produced both. The difference is entirely in what you asked.

    The common mistake

    First-time founders often count enthusiasm. Ten people saying 'that sounds great' feels like validation and is not — nobody has changed their behaviour or spent anything.

    The second: ignoring the people who did not respond. If you contacted 60 and 12 replied, the 48 are data too. A problem people genuinely have gets a better response rate than one they do not.

    The third: averaging across segments. If ops managers are desperate and finance directors are indifferent, the average is 'moderate interest', which describes nobody. Split the analysis by who they are.

    How it works

    Step 1: Transcribe the actual words

    Not your summary. The phrases people use are also your future marketing copy.

    Step 2: Label every line fact, opinion or interpretation

    Tedious and extremely effective. Most 'validation' turns out to be opinion.

    Step 3: Count how many mentioned each thing unprompted

    Unprompted mentions are far stronger than agreement with something you raised.

    Step 4: Look for demonstrated spending

    Anyone who has paid for a partial solution has already proven willingness to pay. That is the strongest single signal available.

    Step 5: Split by segment before concluding

    If one group is desperate and another indifferent, you have found your ICP — not a moderate average.

    Step 6: Write down what would change your mind

    Before analysing. It is much harder to move the goalposts once they are written down.

    When to use this

    After every batch of roughly ten interviews.

    When not to use it

    Do not do a formal analysis after two conversations. There is nothing to analyse and you will over-read whatever you heard.

    Do this now

    Apply this to your own startup in My Full Journey (free account).