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 — 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.