IDEA / REVIEW · R01

Check a Startup Idea's Assumptions

Enter a startup idea to see which customer, problem, and differentiation claims still need evidence. This does not predict success.

Sample preview availableLive runs available

Quality status: Recipe-level semantic benchmark not completed.
Live availability does not certify result quality.

Recipe 1.0.0
Sources S27
Content checked 20 Sep 2026

JEV EVALUATIONEXPERIMENT R01 · V1.0.0
01

YOUR INPUT

Edit the example input

1 credit per 5,000 billed input tokens. We’ll ask before any multi-credit run.

02

RESULT

Jev’s answers

Illustrative sample · Not a live run
Customer Specificityscore
1.50 / 4

Probability-weighted rubric position, not a percentage or confidence score.

  1. 0

    No customer is described

  2. 1

    A very broad group is named

  3. 2

    A profession or business type is named

  4. 3

    A narrow group and relevant situation are specified

  5. 4

    A narrow group, workflow and explicit selection constraints are specified

Provider confidence: 48%

Problem Specificityscore
2.70 / 4

Probability-weighted rubric position, not a percentage or confidence score.

  1. 0

    No problem is described

  2. 1

    A vague inconvenience is stated

  3. 2

    A recognizable problem is named

  4. 3

    A concrete recurring workflow problem is described

  5. 4

    The workflow, consequence and relevant situation are all explicit

Provider confidence: 44%

Differentiationscore
1.20 / 4

Probability-weighted rubric position, not a percentage or confidence score.

  1. 0

    No difference is described

  2. 1

    Only a generic quality claim is made

  3. 2

    A concrete feature difference is claimed

  4. 3

    A feature difference is tied to an explicit user situation

  5. 4

    The text explains a specific alternative and a relevant difference, with limitations

Provider confidence: 39%

Evidence Supportscore
0.20 / 4

Probability-weighted rubric position, not a percentage or confidence score.

  1. 0

    No validation material is supplied

  2. 1

    Only beliefs or hypothetical demand are supplied

  3. 2

    Specific user observations or interviews are reported

  4. 3

    A relevant behavioral test or trial is reported with limitations

  5. 4

    Relevant paid or repeated-use behavior is reported with enough context to inspect

Provider confidence: 62%

Critical Unknownboolean
Probability of true91%
YOUR APP’S NEXT STEPResearch the assumptionsevidence-gap-or-critical-unknown

This labels the next validation step, not commercial success probability.

03

QUESTIONS FOR JEV

Edit the questions

Editing a question requires a new model run. Each experiment keeps its answer types, options, and scoring scale fixed.

04

APP RULES

Change how your app uses the answer

↯ Changing these rules updates the result in your browser without another model call.

Inspect result +
{
  "origin": "fixture",
  "answers": {
    "customerSpecificity": {
      "type": "score",
      "score": 1.5,
      "probabilities": {
        "0": 0,
        "1": 0.5,
        "2": 0.5,
        "3": 0,
        "4": 0
      }
    },
    "problemSpecificity": {
      "type": "score",
      "score": 2.7,
      "probabilities": {
        "0": 0,
        "1": 0,
        "2": 0.2999999999999998,
        "3": 0.7000000000000002,
        "4": 0
      }
    },
    "differentiation": {
      "type": "score",
      "score": 1.2,
      "probabilities": {
        "0": 0,
        "1": 0.8,
        "2": 0.19999999999999996,
        "3": 0,
        "4": 0
      }
    },
    "evidenceSupport": {
      "type": "score",
      "score": 0.2,
      "probabilities": {
        "0": 0.8,
        "1": 0.2,
        "2": 0,
        "3": 0,
        "4": 0
      }
    },
    "criticalUnknown": {
      "type": "boolean",
      "probability": 0.91
    }
  },
  "providerConfidence": {
    "customerSpecificity": 0.48,
    "problemSpecificity": 0.44,
    "differentiation": 0.39,
    "evidenceSupport": 0.62
  },
  "policyDecision": {
    "action": "research",
    "label": "Research the assumptions",
    "reasonCodes": [
      "evidence-gap-or-critical-unknown"
    ]
  },
  "run": null
}
TypeScript export +
import { experimental_evaluate as evaluate } from 'ai';

const state = {
  "idea": "An app that helps freelancers track unpaid invoices.",
  "targetCustomer": "Freelancers",
  "evidence": ""
};
const questions = {
  "customerSpecificity": {
    "type": "score",
    "instructions": "How specifically does the supplied description identify the intended customer? Judge the text, not the market.",
    "criteria": [
      "No customer is described",
      "A very broad group is named",
      "A profession or business type is named",
      "A narrow group and relevant situation are specified",
      "A narrow group, workflow and explicit selection constraints are specified"
    ]
  },
  "problemSpecificity": {
    "type": "score",
    "instructions": "How concrete is the problem description in the supplied text?",
    "criteria": [
      "No problem is described",
      "A vague inconvenience is stated",
      "A recognizable problem is named",
      "A concrete recurring workflow problem is described",
      "The workflow, consequence and relevant situation are all explicit"
    ]
  },
  "differentiation": {
    "type": "score",
    "instructions": "How explicit is the proposed difference from alternatives in the supplied description? Do not invent competitors.",
    "criteria": [
      "No difference is described",
      "Only a generic quality claim is made",
      "A concrete feature difference is claimed",
      "A feature difference is tied to an explicit user situation",
      "The text explains a specific alternative and a relevant difference, with limitations"
    ]
  },
  "evidenceSupport": {
    "type": "score",
    "instructions": "How much relevant validation material is supplied in this text? This is not independent verification of the material.",
    "criteria": [
      "No validation material is supplied",
      "Only beliefs or hypothetical demand are supplied",
      "Specific user observations or interviews are reported",
      "A relevant behavioral test or trial is reported with limitations",
      "Relevant paid or repeated-use behavior is reported with enough context to inspect"
    ]
  },
  "criticalUnknown": {
    "type": "boolean",
    "instructions": "Does the supplied description leave a central demand or execution assumption untested?",
    "criteria": {
      "true": "A central assumption is missing evidence or is explicitly untested.",
      "false": "The described central assumptions have relevant supplied evidence; this does not verify that evidence."
    }
  }
};
const policy = {
  "evidenceFloor": 1,
  "criticalUnknownThreshold": 0.6,
  "specificityFloor": 2,
  "differentiationFloor": 1
};

const result = await evaluate({
  model: 'typesafe-ai/jev',
  state,
  questions,
  maxRetries: 0,
  providerOptions: { gateway: { zeroDataRetention: true } },
});

// Validate result.answers before applying your deterministic policy.
console.log({ answers: result.answers, policy });

USE WHEN

When to use this experiment

You want to identify which parts of an idea need validation next.

LIMITS

What this experiment cannot do

You need market facts, investment advice, or independent evidence verification.

BUILT-IN CHECKS

How this experiment handles edge cases

  • No business success probability is displayed.
  • Empty evidence is never described as completed validation.
  • Changing input invalidates the current result.
  • Rule descriptions are not presented as generated model reasoning.