Sample Demand Validation Report

A short narrative that restates your idea, target customer, and problem, then states the score and verdict with the single biggest reason behind it. It is meant to be read in under a minute.

Opportunity Score: 1.0–10.0, shown as a gauge, plus a plain-language “Why this score” list.

The score is a deterministic, rules-based calculation — not machine learning. It starts at a baseline and moves up or down based on: how specific and detailed your idea description is, how well-defined your target customer is (broad audiences like “everyone” are penalized), how clearly the problem is described, whether the problem statement contains language that implies real business urgency, whether you have an existing website or landing page, and — if you attach a Demand Scan — how many public signals were found and how many scored 70+ for strength.

If a Demand Scan is linked to the report, this section lists the actual public Reddit signals that were found — each with its title, subreddit, and demand score — so you can click through and read the original source yourself. If no scan is linked, this section says so directly rather than filling the space with invented data.

DemandProofHQ does not query live competitor databases or pricing pages today, and this section says so plainly. Instead of a fabricated competitor list, it outlines the categories of incumbent solutions likely relevant to your problem (manual workarounds vs. adjacent SaaS tools) and a short list of gaps worth investigating yourself — a starting checklist, not a finished competitive audit.

No live pricing data is claimed here either. This section suggests a test price range anchored to your report type and the urgency implied by your problem description, with a recommended next step: run an actual pricing test with 20+ prospects rather than trusting an estimate.

A short list of what genuine buying intent looks like in customer conversations — willingness to pay, active search behavior, budget ownership — plus whether your problem description already contains purchase-oriented language. This section tells you what to listen for in interviews, not what buyers have already said.

A short, consistent playbook for each verdict — so “Build”, “Pivot”, and “Avoid” always mean the same thing, not a vibe:

A bulleted list of real risks specific to your submission — for example, an overly broad target audience, a thin problem description, or the fact that demand signals here are estimated rather than pulled from live market data. There is no single Low/Medium/High risk score; risks are listed individually so each one is something you can actually act on.

The mirror image of the risks section — specific, testable reasons the idea could work, drawn from the same inputs (for example: an existing landing page you can run a fast test on, or a narrow buyer segment that makes outreach easier).

A prioritized, day-by-day checklist tailored to your verdict — BUILD reports get a landing-page and pricing test plan, PIVOT reports get a discovery-interview plan, AVOID reports get a revisit-your-assumptions plan. Every plan ends with the same instruction: validate willingness to pay before you build.

Every report states its confidence level (Low / Moderate / High, based on how much detail and public signal evidence went in) and links back to this same methodology explanation. Reports do not access live search, review-site, or competitor APIs today — that is disclosed on the report itself, not buried in fine print. See how reports are built and our disclaimer.