People & JTBD - June 2026

Jobs to be done

Jobs in the format "When [situation], I want [motivation], so that [outcome]." No feature names - only the person's progress. Every job cites its persona and research source. Hypothesis claims carry a ? badge. Confirmed claims carry no badge.

Main job of the product

Main Job

"When I am preparing for a roadmap planning session and I have customer feedback spread across multiple tools I haven't had time to read, I want to feel certain I know what our customers actually need most - with the evidence behind it - so that I can walk into the session with a call I'll stand behind and defend if anyone pushes back."

A - Primary
Note: Stated in the PM's language, not the product's. The product names this "synthesis-to-defensible-decision." The PM names it "I want to not be guessing when I walk into the room."
Source: strategy.md (Segment A primary JTBD). research.md (JTBD Selected jobs). CLAUDE.md (Primary Job). ux-patterns.md B1, B5.

Related jobs

Jobs that arise on the way to the main job, or that share the same evidence infrastructure.

Stakeholder defense

"When a colleague or executive challenges a roadmap decision I've already made, I want to pull up the actual customer evidence behind it right then, so that I can hold my position with facts rather than back down because I can't remember where I saw it."

A - primary B - secondary (higher stakes: board, not sales)
Source: strategy.md (Segment A secondary JTBD). ux-patterns.md B2 (evidence as a social object).

Make sense of the incoming pile

"When I receive feedback from multiple sources over the past month, I want to see the coherent picture of what is happening without having to read everything myself, so that I can spot the real patterns and not just the loudest voices."

A - primary B - secondary (managing the team's pile)
Source: strategy.md (Segment A pain: synthesis is scattered). ux-patterns.md B1, B5. CLAUDE.md (Secondary Job 2).

Know how much to trust a conclusion MVP core

"When I am looking at a summary of what customers want, I want to understand how strong the evidence actually is behind each conclusion, so that I can decide whether to act on it now or wait until I have more signal before putting it on the roadmap."

A - primary

D2 - Founder decision, June 2026

Confidence display is mandatory in MVP - not optional. Tied directly to H1: transparency is the condition H1 requires. Day-one scope: item count per theme (n=X) and a "low signal" badge for thin evidence. Source diversity, time range display, and configurable thresholds are v2 scope. Source: strategy.md Section 6, research.md Section 9.

Source: benchmark.md (Mechanism 3). ux-patterns.md B3 (trust through spot-checking).

Get the team to the same "why"

"When I share a roadmap decision with engineering, design, or customer success, I want to give them the customer evidence behind it in a form they can read and respond to without needing access to my tools, so that we are aligned on why we are building this before we discuss how."

A - secondary B - primary (coordinates across PM team)
Source: ux-patterns.md B2 (evidence as a social object). strategy.md (Segment B pain: no consistent evidence standard). aarrr.md (Retention: collaboration drives retention).

Close the signal loop with the people who supply it Cut from MVP

"When I have processed customer feedback and made a decision about it, I want the people who submitted that feedback to see what it contributed to, so that they keep sending me signal rather than giving up because nothing visible ever happens to it."

C - primary A - secondary (PM benefits from CS continuing to supply signal)

D1 - Founder decision, June 2026 - cut from MVP

Segment C is deferred. J5 is not a separate backlog feature - it is a PM retention dependency. If the signal supplier stops submitting, the PM's data quality degrades. The Segment A transparency design (theme - evidence - source chain) is the prerequisite surface for this function in the fast follow. Source: strategy.md Section 6, research.md Section 9.

Source: strategy.md (Segment C JTBD). competitors.md (Canny addresses this externally through public roadmap).

Emotional and social jobs

Emotional

Feel like I actually understood it, not just processed it ?

"When I finish reviewing customer feedback before a planning session, I want to feel I have genuinely understood what customers are saying and not just moved text around, so that I can walk into the meeting without the nagging suspicion that I missed something important."

A - primary
? The "nagging suspicion" emotional texture is a hypothesis - no primary source confirms this specific phrasing. Supported directionally by strategy.md (Segment A motivation: "feel confident, not just defensible") but not sourced from a PM voice.
Source: strategy.md, ux-patterns.md B3.

Emotional

Feel certain instead of defensive when questioned ?

"When a stakeholder questions a decision I've made, I want to feel grounded and prepared rather than defensive or caught off guard, so that I project confidence and move the conversation forward rather than backing down or apologizing."

A - primary B - secondary (higher visibility: the board call)
? The "defensive vs. confident" framing is a hypothesis. Research confirms the situation (stakeholder challenges a decision) but the exact emotional texture is not yet sourced from a primary PM voice.
Source: strategy.md (Segment A motivation). CLAUDE.md ("emotion to design for: confidence and calm"). research.md (Objective 1).

Give stakeholders something they can engage with MVP core

"When I share a roadmap decision with someone who was not involved in the research, I want to give them a traceable set of evidence they can question or push back on, so that the conversation is about what customers actually said rather than about whether to trust my judgment."

A - primary B - primary (higher stakes)
Source: ux-patterns.md B2 (evidence as a social object). aarrr.md (Referral: brief circulates in environments where the audience is receptive to PM tools).

Create a credible evidence standard the whole team uses ?

"When my PM team each runs their own process for synthesizing feedback, I want to establish a shared approach that produces comparable, citable evidence across the team, so that when I present to leadership I am showing a systematic picture of customer needs rather than one PM's synthesis stitched together with another's."

B - primary A - secondary (benefits from being part of a consistent team standard)
? Whether Product Leads actively want a standardized evidence tool vs. individual PMs choosing their own is a hypothesis - no primary source confirms the exact shape of Segment B's adoption decision.
Source: strategy.md (Segment B pain: "every PM synthesizes feedback differently").

Hypothesis jobs

Plausible but with no direct research data behind them. Not in the matrix. Not in MVP scope until confirmed.

H-J1

Hypothesis

Continuous sensing between cycles

"When I am not in a planning cycle, I want to stay loosely aware of whether customer problems are shifting, so that I am not surprised when I sit down for planning and find the picture has changed."

? ux-patterns.md B5 identifies retrospective synthesis as the primary pattern. aarrr.md Retention describes "new signal since last session" as the retention hook, but this is a product design choice, not a confirmed PM behavior. No source confirms PMs actively want monitoring between cycles vs. preferring to stay focused on the current sprint.
Source: ux-patterns.md B5 (retrospective synthesis, not continuous monitoring).

H-J2

Hypothesis

Reproduce someone else's synthesis

"When a colleague has already synthesized feedback from a period I was not involved in, I want to be able to see how they reached their conclusions, so that I can build on their work rather than start from scratch."

? No research source addresses team-level synthesis reuse. Implied by strategy.md Segment B pain (inconsistent standards) but not confirmed as a job a PM would actively seek to do.
Status: unconfirmed hypothesis. Needs primary research.

JTBD matrix

Importance 1 (low), 2 (medium), 3 (high) for each persona. FUNCTION shows what in the product closes this job. COMPETITORS shows which named competitors partially or fully close it.

Job	A - PM	B - Product Lead	C - Signal Supplier	Function	Competitors
Main: Confident defensible synthesis MVP core	3	2	-	AI synthesis view: theme clusters with evidence counts, recency, ranked by signal volume. Full drill-down to raw source.	Productboard Spark (partial, trust mechanism unclear); Canny (vote-based, not synthesis); Enterpret (partial, enterprise-only); Dovetail (research, not roadmap). None close the transparent trust chain.
J1: Stakeholder defense	3	3	1	Shareable evidence document with traceable source links. Viewable without Sift access.	Dovetail (insight docs with clips - research audience, not roadmap defense); Productboard (partial sharing); Canny (public roadmap - customer-facing). No competitor closes PM-to-stakeholder defense specifically.
J2: Make sense of the incoming pile	3	2	2	Feedback ingestion pipeline + AI theme clustering with source attribution.	Productboard (Spark capture + classification); Canny (Autopilot); Enterpret (adaptive taxonomy, 50+ integrations). All close capture. None close trustworthy synthesis.
J3: Know how much to trust a conclusion MVP core	3	2	?	Day-one (D2): item count (n=X) + "low signal" badge for thin evidence. v2: source diversity, time range, thresholds	None of the five competitors clearly close this from public pages. The clearest unclosed gap in the market.
J4: Get the team to the same "why"	2	3	1	Shareable evidence document + Jira/Linear link connecting evidence to roadmap items.	Dovetail (shareable insight docs for research teams, not PM-to-team alignment). Canny (changelog - customer-facing, not internal). Partially closed by Dovetail for wrong audience.
J5: Close the signal loop Cut - D1	1	1	3	Signal supplier view: contribution tracker. Cut from MVP by D1. PM retention dependency - fast follow after Segment A transparency is built.	Canny (public roadmap and changelog - external/customer-facing, not internal CS-to-PM). Not closed for internal use by any competitor.
E1: Feel like I actually understood it	3	2	?	All trust mechanisms together: spot-checkable themes, honest confidence, drill-down to raw text.	Not explicitly designed for by any competitor.
E2: Feel certain instead of defensive	3	3	?	Full evidence chain: theme - evidence items - raw source. PM can answer "why is this the priority?" in one click.	Not explicitly designed for. Synthesis outputs exist; the "walk into the room feeling ready" experience is not a stated design goal in any competitor's public UX.
S1: Give stakeholders something to engage with MVP core	3	3	?	Public shareable brief with inline citations. No login required to view.	Dovetail (shareable research docs); Canny (public-facing, different function). Partially closed for research teams. Not closed for roadmap defense.
S2: Create a shared evidence standard	2	3	?	Team workspace with consistent synthesis view, shared integrations, same confidence display for all PMs.	Productboard (team workspace, synthesis method unclear). Enterpret (consistent taxonomy). Partially closed at team setup level; not closed at trust-and-evidence level.

Matrix conclusions

3 jobs for the MVP core

Jobs with importance 3 for Persona A (primary persona) that are not closed by any existing competitor.

MVP Core 01

Confident defensible synthesis for planning (Main Job)

Importance 3 for Persona A. All competitors provide feedback capture and AI classification. None demonstrate, on public pages, a transparent synthesis chain the PM can act on and defend. The gap is at the trust layer, not at the data layer.

MVP Core 02

Know how much to trust a conclusion (J3)

Importance 3 for Persona A. The clearest unclosed gap across all five competitors. No competitor shows sample size and confidence level alongside synthesis conclusions with honest variation (thin evidence vs. strong evidence treated differently). This is the single function most needed to make the main job achievable. Day-one scope locked by D2: item count (n=X) + "low signal" badge.

D2 - Mandatory in MVP. Day-one scope only.

Confidence display is the mechanism that makes H1 true. Without it, the transparency condition fails. Source diversity, time range, and configurable thresholds are v2 - not MVP blockers.

MVP Core 03

Give stakeholders something they can engage with (S1)

Importance 3 for both Persona A and B. Dovetail partially closes this for research teams, not PM roadmap defense. No competitor has a PM-focused shareable evidence brief designed for the "defend your roadmap to leadership" moment. This is both a product function and the primary referral artifact (aarrr.md: the brief drives acquisition, retention, and referral simultaneously).

Candidate-for-cut functions

Functions that close no job with importance 3 for Persona A, or close jobs already well-served by competitors.

Signal heard loop / contribution tracker (J5) D1

Importance 3 for Segment C only. Confirmed cut from MVP by D1 (June 2026). Segment C is a PM retention dependency, not an independent MVP feature. The Segment A transparency design (theme - evidence - source chain) is the prerequisite surface for this function in the fast follow. Source: strategy.md Section 6.

Real-time monitoring / continuous sensing (H-J1)

Not confirmed as a real job. ux-patterns.md explicitly identifies retrospective synthesis as the primary behavior. Real-time dashboard is the anti-pattern per ux-patterns.md (canvas pattern, Pattern D).

Team synthesis reproduction (H-J2)

Unconfirmed hypothesis. No research source supports it as a stated need. Not in MVP scope.

H1 - Riskiest assumption: status as of June 2026

Updated - live research June 2026

H1 is conditionally confirmed (MEDIUM). When synthesis is transparent and traceable (inline citations, evidence counts, drill-down to raw signal), PMs DO act on AI synthesis without re-synthesizing raw data. Without transparency, H1 fails. Founder decision D2 responds to this: confidence display is mandatory in MVP precisely because transparency is the condition H1 requires. Sources: aipmtools.org, blog.ravi-mehta.com, productboard.com, capterra.com (June 2026). See live-research.md F1, F2, F3, F4. strategy.md Section 5.