name

prd-v02-product-type-classification

description

Classify product approach into one of six types (Clone, Unbundle, Undercut, Slice, Wrapper, Innovation) based on competitive landscape. Triggers on PRD v0.2 work after competitive analysis, or when user asks "what type of product should we build?", "should we clone or innovate?", "is this a fast-follow opportunity?", "how should we position against competitors?", "clone vs undercut", "unbundle vs slice", or requests help choosing product strategy. Outputs BR- entries for product type classification and inherited GTM constraints.

Product Type Classification

Position in HORIZON workflow: v0.2 Competitive Landscape → v0.2 Product Type Classification → v0.3 Outcome Definition

Six Product Types

Type	Definition	When Evidence Shows
Clone	Copy proven product, execute better	Leader validated market; weak moat; execution gap
Unbundle	Extract one category from horizontal platform	Multi-category platform does your thing poorly
Undercut	Same product, simpler + cheaper for niche	Tool overserves broad market; 60%+ price gap possible
Slice	Plugin/extension in existing ecosystem	Platform has marketplace; users already there
Wrapper	AI/API layer on existing data/tools	Middleware gap between tools; data accessible
Innovation	New solution to known problem	Existing approaches fundamentally broken; high pain

Classification Decision Flow

START: What does v0.2 Competitive Landscape show?

Q1: Is there a dominant horizontal platform doing many things?
    YES → Does it do YOUR thing poorly? 
          YES → UNBUNDLE (extract the vertical)
          NO → Continue to Q2
    NO → Continue to Q2

Q2: Is there a single-purpose leader with validated market?
    YES → Can you price 60%+ lower for a niche?
          YES → UNDERCUT
          NO → Can you execute better (speed/UX)?
                YES → CLONE
                NO → Continue to Q3
    NO → Continue to Q3

Q3: Does target customer live in a platform ecosystem?
    YES → Does platform have marketplace/app store?
          YES → SLICE (build extension)
          NO → Continue to Q4
    NO → Continue to Q4

Q4: Is there a data/API integration gap between tools?
    YES → Is the data accessible (API/scraping)?
          YES → WRAPPER
          NO → Continue to Q5
    NO → Continue to Q5

Q5: Are existing solutions fundamentally broken?
    YES → Is pain severe enough for education investment?
          YES → INNOVATION
          NO → Reconsider market
    NO → Reconsider market or revisit Q1-Q4

Evidence Requirements Per Type

Type	Required Evidence (from v0.2 Landscape)	Confidence Threshold
Clone	Revenue proof + feature gap + weak moat	Medium (50%+)
Unbundle	Platform size + category neglect + user complaints	Medium (50%+)
Undercut	Price benchmarks + niche pain + simplification path	High (70%+)
Slice	Platform MAU + marketplace presence + integration docs	High (70%+)
Wrapper	API availability + use case validation + cost model	High (70%+)
Innovation	Failed alternatives + severe pain + budget evidence	Very High (85%+)

Output Template

After classification, create these entries:

BR-XXX: Product Type Classification

Type: [Clone | Unbundle | Undercut | Slice | Wrapper | Innovation]
Confidence: [X]%
Primary Evidence: [CFD-XXX reference]
Classification Rationale: [2-3 sentences]

BR-XXX: GTM Constraints (inherited from type)

Pricing Constraint: [See references/gtm-constraints.md]
Channel Constraint: [See references/gtm-constraints.md]
Scope Constraint: [See references/gtm-constraints.md]
Timeline Implication: [See references/gtm-constraints.md]

Anti-Patterns to Avoid

Claiming Innovation when it's really Clone: If competitor exists with revenue, you're not innovating
Undercut without price evidence: Must show 60%+ reduction is possible AND sustainable
Slice without ecosystem validation: Platform must actually want third-party apps
Wrapper without API access confirmed: Technical feasibility must precede classification
Unbundle from small platform: Only works against large horizontal players

Reference Files

Decision Framework: See references/decision-framework.md for expanded decision trees
Examples: See references/examples.md for good/bad classification cases
GTM Constraints: See references/gtm-constraints.md for type → constraint mapping
Classification Template: See assets/classification.md for structured worksheet

Downstream Impact

Classification constrains v0.3 decisions:

Outcome metrics must match type (Clone = feature parity; Undercut = price advantage)
Pricing model anchored to type (Undercut must show savings; Slice follows platform norms)
MVP scope bounded by type (Clone = match leader; Undercut = ruthlessly cut features)
GTM channel determined by type (Slice = marketplace; Undercut = direct to niche)