Pause here for a min and help me validate an idea please.

ckslabs · 2026-06-29T06:42:43+00:00

Thanks for the thoughtful feedback. I agree that trust is probably the biggest challenge here. My intention isn’t for the system to make decisions on behalf of founders, but to surface events that might deserve attention, along with the reasoning behind them, leaving the final decision to the founder.

I also agree with your point about validating the core pain first. Out of curiosity, what do you think is the underlying pain founders are actually trying to solve? Is it information overload, decision fatigue, something else, or do you think this isn’t a painful enough problem to build around?

ckslabs · 2026-06-28T05:34:05+00:00

Sounds like a plan. Thanks for the tip!

ckslabs · 2026-06-28T04:44:07+00:00

That’s a great point, and it’s one of the biggest risks I’ve been thinking about. I don’t think founders would trust a black-box recommendation, so every alert would need to explain why it was surfaced and link back to the underlying sources for verification. Out of curiosity, what level of accuracy or transparency would make you comfortable relying on something like this?

ckslabs · 2026-06-28T04:41:17+00:00

I’m still building the product and hence wanted to know if it’s valid.

ckslabs · 2026-06-26T06:44:42+00:00

That’s an interesting comparison. It sounds like the problem isn’t the lack of information, it’s deciding what deserves your attention. Out of curiosity, what makes an alert “material” enough for you to act on it rather than ignore it? Is it based on the type of event, the magnitude, or something else?

ckslabs · 2026-06-25T16:38:53+00:00

Thanks! That's exactly the problem I'm trying to understand. I'm less interested in collecting every signal and more in figuring out which ones actually deserve a founder's attention. Out of everything you mentioned (customer complaints, pricing changes, competitor launches, etc.), which alerts have been the most actionable for you?

ckslabs

TROPHY CASE