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 Smoke Test |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  Growth A/B Testing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 only needs to be roughly verified, it tests interest with minimal effort. It measures whether people would take a next step at all. | Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it. | When two variants compete, discussions quickly decide by taste rather than effect. A/B Testing checks behavior under controlled conditions and separates real improvement from chance or expectation effects. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1-5 Tage | 45-90 min | 1-4 Wochen |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | Nutzertraffic | 2-8 | 1-6 |
Formatdifferent | Async | Async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Interest Metrics, Conversion Signal, Learning Note | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | ValidationExperimentsDemandGrowth | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation |