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 |  UX Research User Interviews |  Product Discovery Experiment Canvas |  Product Discovery Fake Door 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 teams derive needs only from assumptions and real motives are missing, user interviews give direct access to behavior and meaning. Conversations from the target group's everyday life make patterns, tensions, and open questions solidly visible. | When experiments become unreadable after the fact, it arranges hypothesis, signal, and learning goal on a single canvas. It separates problem, assumption, solution, and evidence. The result is captured as a Completed Experiment Canvas and a Success Metric. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 30–60 min per interview | 30-60 min | 1-5 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | 3-20 Reviewer | 1 participant per interview | 1-5 | Nutzertraffic |
Formatdifferent | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Async |
Outputdifferent | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Completed Experiment Canvas, Success Metric | Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision |
Tagsno overlap | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryHypothesis | ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery |