Try the Market Verdict demo before using your own idea

Agreed, and that's the failure mode I worry about most. A number that looks precise invites more confidence than the underlying evidence supports. The way I try to handle it: the score isn't the deliverable. The output is a breakdown of which specific assumptions are load-bearing and where the evidence is thin, plus a plan for what to test next. A high score should mean "this is worth spending three weeks testing," not "build it." I also publish the methodology so people can see what's actually being weighed instead of treating it as an oracle. Whether that framing survives contact with users is a different question — people do tend to read the number and skip the reasoning. If you've seen a presentation format that pushes readers toward the caveats rather than past them, I'd take the suggestion.

That's a fair distinction — pre-launch validation and post-launch complaints are measuring two different things. Market Verdict is deliberately a pre-build tool: it scores an idea against market, competition, and demand signals before anyone writes code. Complaint data is a much stronger signal, but by the time you have it you've already spent the money. Where I think the two connect is calibration. If you can see which post-launch failure modes cluster with which pre-launch signals, that's a feedback loop for the scoring itself rather than a new input to it. Not on my roadmap right now, but I'd be interested to hear what patterns you're seeing in ComplaintIQ — what shows up in complaints that a founder plausibly could have caught earlier?