AIWorkDex
Customer Research Practice

Compare segments with common evidence fields

Choose the next segment for focused validation without turning polite interest into proof of urgency.

Preparation
A comparison after one consistent research round
Difficulty
Advanced
Task
Compare urgency across segments
Back to the Task: Compare urgency across segments

Before you start

Get what you need before you start

  • List the candidate segments and the same recent problem to investigate in each.
  • Prepare source links for every interview observation.

Steps

Work through the method

Use the listed inputs and tools. Check the evidence when you need to verify a step.

  1. Define candidate segments

    Describe each segment through observable work, context, and constraints rather than a broad demographic label.

    Why it matters: The comparison needs distinct groups that the research team can recruit and recognise.

    Input
    The venture hypothesis and current contacts.
    Output
    A short candidate-segment list.
    Tools in this stepGoogle Sheets

    Evidence for this step

  2. Set common evidence fields

    Use the same fields for recent problem, present priority, workaround, consequence, action, and contrary evidence.

    Why it matters: Common fields make differences inspectable without inventing a score.

    Input
    The segment list and research question.
    Output
    A shared comparison template.
    Tools in this stepGoogle Sheets

    Evidence for this step

  3. Collect recent accounts

    Ask each participant about the last time the problem occurred and record the source beside each field.

    Why it matters: The comparison should use recent behaviour rather than general enthusiasm.

    Input
    Interview evidence from each segment.
    Output
    Source-linked segment rows.
    Tools in this stepGoogle Sheets

    Evidence for this step

  4. Separate interest from action

    Record meetings, workarounds, allocated effort, contracts, and other observed actions separately from positive comments.

    Why it matters: Continued conversation can occur without present priority.

    Input
    The segment rows.
    Output
    Separate stated-interest and observed-action fields.
    Tools in this stepGoogle Sheets

    Evidence for this step

  5. Challenge the apparent leader

    Search for cases where the leading segment lacks urgency or another segment takes stronger action.

    Why it matters: Contrary evidence tests an early pattern before focus narrows.

    Input
    The current comparison.
    Output
    A contrary-case note for each plausible leader.
    Tools in this stepGoogle Sheets

    Evidence for this step

  6. Choose the next validation focus

    Document which segment receives the next round, the evidence behind that choice, and the unresolved commercial questions.

    Why it matters: The result is a research focus rather than a claim that the market is proven.

    Input
    The completed comparison and contrary cases.
    Output
    A segment focus and next validation question.
    Tools in this stepGoogle Sheets

    Evidence for this step

Success checks

Check the result before you finish

  • Every segment uses the same evidence fields.
  • Observed actions remain separate from stated interest.
  • The decision names contrary evidence and unresolved market questions.

Failure modes

Watch for these problems

  • Run another consistent round when one segment has materially less evidence.
  • Split a segment when its workflows or constraints differ enough to invalidate comparison.
  • Reject a numerical ranking that lacks a verified scoring method.

Tools

Choose the tools you need

Sources

Read the sources behind this practice

Check what each source supports and where the advice has limits.