View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  UX Research User Interviews |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |  Product Discovery Riskiest Assumption Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | 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 assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 45-60 min | 1-2 Wochen pro Iteration |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 3-20 Reviewer | 2-8 | 2-6 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking | Prioritized Assumption List, Test Plan, Results Report |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation | ExperimentsValidationDiscoveryAssumptions |