The score is arithmetic, not vibes.
Seven dimensions, each weighted, summing to one hundred. Two of them count against the idea rather than for it.
Pain severity
25%How much the complaints in real reviews sound like suffering rather than mild preference.
Market gap
20%What people ask for that nothing currently on the market does.
MVP feasibility
15%How small the first shippable or openable version can honestly be.
Competition density
15%How crowded the space already is. More competitors lowers the score.
Counts against the score
Monetization potential
10%Whether the people complaining are people who pay for things.
Community demand
10%How much unprompted discussion exists in the places customers actually gather.
Startup saturation
5%How much funded competition has already arrived. More lowers the score.
Counts against the score
Total100%
The weighted result is clamped to 0–100. A high score is not permission to build. It means the evidence points the right way, and the report tells you what that evidence was.
Here it is, multiplied out.
The weights above are only a claim until something is actually calculated with them. This is a real example, run through the same arithmetic the pipeline uses.
A cortisol-tracking wearable for shift workers
| Dimension | Score | Weight | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pain severity | 88 | ×25% | 22.00 |
| Market gap | 82 | ×20% | 16.40 |
| MVP feasibility | 54 | ×15% | 8.10 |
| Competition densityinverted | 71 | ×15% | 10.65 |
| Monetization potential | 76 | ×10% | 7.60 |
| Community demand | 84 | ×10% | 8.40 |
| Startup saturationinverted | 60 | ×5% | 3.00 |
| Opportunity score | 100% | 76.15→ 76 |
Rounded once at the end, not per row, because rounding each line first would leave a column that does not total its own footer. This is the same calculation the pipeline runs; there is no adjustment layer on top of it.