TL;DR
NO CROWN THIS RUN. VALIDATE-FIRST candidate: Idea 3 — Arbitration Precedent Resolution Log. Launch price: $29/mo First buyer + venue: The coordinating reviewer who owns the conflict queue on a 2–4 person dual-screening team, reached via r/systematicreviews plus warm university research-methods circles. Hours/week required: 5–15 (60h total build cap) Realistic time-to-first-dollar: No visible buyer exists in the evidence today; run the validation-only sprint (~6 hours, $0) BEFORE building. If the pain is confirmed: 3–5 weeks. If not confirmed: $0, and you stop. Kill sentence (verbatim): "IF I DO NOT REACH 3 PAID COMMITMENTS BY DAY 14, I ABANDON OR PIVOT."
Scorecard
| Idea | Demand | Spend | Reach | Fit | Channel | Price math | 90-day $ | Total | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 — Protocol Amendment Decision Ledger | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | $147 | 3 | ARCHIVED |
| 3 — Arbitration Precedent Resolution Log | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | $232 | 3 | VALIDATE-FIRST |
- Idea 1 blockers: no observed spend; venue failed REACH rule; no evidence the venue converts; PRICE_MATH below the goal floor.
- Idea 3 blockers: no observed spend; venue failed REACH rule; no evidence the venue converts; PRICE_MATH below the goal floor.
The Verdict
NO CROWN THIS RUN.
What is missing is the single fact that matters: neither idea has a demonstrated individual-level willingness to pay. Both ledgers read buyer NONE VISIBLE. The demand evidence proves the feature is absent from incumbents — it does not prove any person will hand over money. The quotes that do exist speak to screening volume and tool cost, and one of them describes a person who explicitly will not pay $339 and whose instinct is "I will just work faster." That is not a buyer; that is someone defending a $0 spend.
What to validate first, cheapest action per candidate:
- Idea 3 (the stronger path): Missing evidence class = observed willingness to pay by an individual queue-owner. Cheapest action: a text-only search sprint through r/systematicreviews and warm research-methods circles for "we keep relitigating the same disagreement" fatigue. Gate: if fewer than 8 such expressions surface, the $500 floor is unreachable and you stop. This costs ~6 hours and $0.
The strongest verified prior-art fact (CONCEDED by the cross-model red team): every major incumbent — Covidence, DistillerSR, Rayyan — records who won a conflict but discards why. That functional gap is real. It is not the same as a paying buyer.
Reality Check
- Hours split: Build cap is 60h total. Before any build, spend ~6h on validation only. Post-launch, distribution must be ≥50% of your 5–15 weekly hours — realistically 7–8h/week of posting and DMs. This is non-negotiable because you have no existing audience.
- First-dollar range: 3–5 weeks IF the validation sprint confirms ≥8 pain expressions. $0 if it does not.
- What you may not want to hear: Your self-image as builder is the broke Excel grad student. That person is NOT your buyer and never pays. Your buyer is the coordinating reviewer on a funded, multi-person review — a person you must confirm exists in your reachable venues before touching the 60-hour cap.
Graveyard (excerpt)
- IDEA 2 — Rolling Intra-Rater Calibration Layer: NO BUYER — 1/2 verified quote citations
- IDEA 9 — Screener Throughput Parity Monitor: UNREACHABLE — venue failed the REACH rule
- IDEA 1 — Protocol Amendment Decision Ledger: NO OBSERVED SPEND — archived at the willingness-to-pay gate
…and 9 more, each with its cause of death.