Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Selected:ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)MVP Test Matrix Problem Interview Fake Door Test

Criterion	Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)	Product Discovery MVP Test Matrix	Product Discovery Problem Interview	Product Discovery Fake Door Test
Purposedifferent	ARID examines how well developers can work with a technical design. It focuses on a part of the system that can still be revised, between the architecture overview and the detailed specification.	When several minimal variants compete to answer the same question, it makes comparing and choosing between them cleaner. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence. The result is captured as a Test Matrix and a Test Plan.	When the picture of the problem still needs to become solid, it asks about real situations and consequences. It separates genuine suffering from mere interest in a solution.	When demand is still unclear, it measures interest in a feature before it is built. It separates real behavior from polite agreement and deliberately keeps build effort small.
Complexitysame	Medium	Medium	Medium	Medium
Timedifferent	2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional	45-75 min	30-60 min je Interview	1-5 Tage
Participantsdifferent	Designers, developers as users, and facilitation	2-8	5-12 Interviews	Nutzertraffic
Formatdifferent	Workshop + async	Workshop	Workshop + async	Async
Outputdifferent	Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions	Test Matrix, Test Plan	Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer Segments	Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision
Tags1 shared	ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks	ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryOptions	DiscoveryInterviewsValidation	ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery

Add more methods