Show IH: I built an idea tool that's designed to say no — here's its own demo run

Every validator I tried is a feel-good machine. Paste an idea, get a high score, a paragraph

about why it's promising, and permission to spend three months. At one point I pasted this

very product into one of them and it loved it. That told me what the score was worth.

So I built the opposite. The honest way to show it is my own demo run, published unedited:

One Discovery run, start to finish:

- 20 sub-markets planned → 60 searches → 93 results → 24 pages read in full

- 69 candidate ideas in, 36 killed by the deal-breaker checks, 5 finalists out

- 56 documented problems from 41 sources. 32 carry a link you can open; the other 24 are

labelled as the tool's own estimate instead of being dressed up as evidence

- Best finalist: 52/100, grade C, verdict "test it first" — ship a narrow landing page

before writing any code

The 52 is the point. That's my showcase run, sitting on my own marketing pages, and I left it

at 52 because the alternative was inventing an 88. A tool that never says no isn't protecting

you from anything.

Mechanically: the 0-100 score is computed in code from a fixed weighted rubric rather than

asked of a model. Validation plans are async by design — a landing page and a real CTA, never

"go book 20 discovery calls". There are 17 analysis modes; Discovery, where it sources the

candidates itself instead of scoring one you bring, is the flagship.

What I want from you: open the run and tell me where it's wrong. And the question I actually

can't answer myself — is a kill-biased tool useful, or does everyone secretly want the 88?

Prepaid credits, no subscription. Signup gives 2 free credits, enough for the single-idea

check; Discovery runs cost credits because each one burns real search and model spend.