View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Product Discovery Fake Door Test |  Product Discovery MVP Test Matrix |  Product Discovery Riskiest Assumption Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | When an idea hinges on one critical unknown, it prioritizes testing that exact piece of uncertainty first. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence. The result is captured as a prioritized list of assumptions, a test plan, and a result report. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1-5 Tage | 45-75 min | 1-2 Wochen pro Iteration |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | Nutzertraffic | 2-8 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision | Test Matrix, Test Plan | Prioritized Assumption List, Test Plan, Results Report |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryOptions | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryAssumptions |