View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Product Discovery Problem Interview |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |  Product Discovery MVP Test Matrix |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | An RFC clarifies architecture context, options, and consequences. It structures technical context, alternatives, tradeoffs, open questions, and review feedback, and captures the result as an RFC document, reviewer comments, and a decision rationale. | 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. | 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. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30-60 min je Interview | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1-5 Tage | 45-75 min |
Participantsdifferent | 5-12 Interviews | 3-20 Reviewer | Nutzertraffic | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Problem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer Segments | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision | Test Matrix, Test Plan |
Tagsno overlap | DiscoveryInterviewsValidation | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryOptions |