I scored 6 ICPs before sending a single cold message. Here's the framework and what happened.

This resonates a lot, adding weighted criteria to ICP research was a gamechanger. Once you start assigning actual scores instead of vibes, you stop rationalizing the "exciting" segment and start following the data. Saved you from burning other months on the wrong audience. Frameworks really are the foundation of solid customer research. Without structure, you're just pattern-matching on hope.

"I evaluated 6 segments:"

Hi, did you use a prompt (and if yes, can you share it) for the ICP identifications ?

This is great, thanks for sharing...really clean!

Really like the weighted scoring approach. I've been doing something similar but way less structured — basically just a gut-feel matrix in a spreadsheet.

The 3x weight on pain intensity resonates hard. I spent way too long chasing "developer tools" as a broad ICP last year before realizing that the subset who were actively frustrated (posting about it on Twitter, asking in forums) converted at like 10x the rate of the general pool. Pain frequency is underrated too — a problem someone hits daily is worth way more than something that bugs them quarterly.

One thing I'm curious about: did you find that the scoring shifted after you started getting actual customer data? I've noticed my initial ICP assumptions usually hold directionally but the weights change. Budget fit ended up mattering less than I expected because motivated buyers find money. Decision speed mattered way more.

35% reply rate on cold outreach is nuts btw. That alone validates the whole framework.

The 3x weight on pain intensity is the most important insight here. Most founders (myself included) default to scoring ICPs on market size or ease of reach — both of which are about our convenience, not the customer's urgency.

One thing I'd add to your Business category: score the "decision pathway" separately from budget. Even cash-rich ICPs can be slow to buy if the decision needs 3 approvals. Solo founders score highest here precisely because there's no approval chain.

Your 35% reply rate with 21 messages is the real proof. At that signal quality, you don't need 10,000 emails — you need 200 targeted ones. Most people learn this backwards (blast → low reply rate → wonder why), so the fact that you front-loaded the scoring is the actual insight.

This is gold. The weighted scoring (especially Pain 3x) is exactly the rigor most founders skip.

One layer deeper I'm curious about: Your framework validates who to target (the ICP), but how do you validate what they actually want to pay for before building the full distribution framework?

I learned that even with the perfect ICP (indie hackers building AI SaaS), "they need distribution" ≠ "they'll pay $X for this specific workflow." I wasted $20K building features my ICP said they wanted, but wouldn't pay for.

Now I use video prototypes after ICP scoring: show the ICP a 3-minute demo of the solution, test if they'll pay, before coding the infrastructure.

Have you tested specific feature/price validation with your top ICP, or is the 35% reply rate + 2 sales your primary validation signal?

Would love to compare notes on "ICP scoring + demand validation" as a combined framework. Feels like we're solving complementary parts of the same problem.

Love this systematic approach. The 3x weight on pain intensity is spot-on — so many founders optimize for market size while ignoring whether anyone actually feels the problem acutely enough to pay.

One addition I'd suggest: test the "accessibility" score before you commit. I've seen ICPs that look perfect on paper but are impossible to reach without expensive ad spend or existing network access. Your framework accounts for this with the 2x weight, but I'd validate it with a small experiment: can you actually get 10 of these people on a call in a week?

The 35% reply rate you got validates everything. Most cold outreach sees 1-5%. When you nail the ICP, the difference is dramatic — they feel like you're reading their mind because... you are.

The "content richness" factor in your Fit category is interesting. You're basically scoring whether they have enough signal to apply your distribution framework to. That's a smart product-specific criterion that most generic ICP frameworks miss.

Have you found that your top ICP (AI SaaS indie hackers) has stayed consistent as you've gotten more customers? Or are you iterating on the scoring based on who actually converts and retains?