Build · Assess & Decide · Analysis & Finance
Build a Protagonist-Selection Pain-and-Gain Scorecard
I get a structured scorecard covering exactly the candidate protagonists I name, each with a valid role tag, pain and gain scores on my chosen scale, and a short written rationale, and exactly one flagged as the chosen protagonist, where the choice provably maximizes the pain+gain rule under my stated tie-break.
You receive: A JSON object {candidates:[{name, role, painScore, gainScore, rationale, isChosen}]} with one entry per candidate you name (each exactly once, at most 50), role drawn from your allowed role tags, painScore and gainScore as whole numbers from 1 to your chosen scale top, and a written rationale of at least 5 words per candidate.
Part of Pitch Investors
What's verified: STUD verifies the scorecard covers exactly the candidates you name (each exactly once, at most 50), tags every candidate with one of your allowed roles, scores pain and gain as whole numbers from 1 to your chosen scale top, includes a written rationale of at least 5 words for every candidate, and flags exactly one chosen protagonist whose pain+gain sum provably maximizes the rule under your stated tie-break. STUD does NOT verify that the scores or rationales are accurate to your real market or product context, nor that the chosen protagonist will actually make the best story.
Opens soon
This play is verified and ready. It opens soon, once sign-in and payments are live.
Example
A sample of what this play produces. Your result is generated for your inputs.
Candidates
| Name | Role | Pain Score | Gain Score | Rationale | Is Chosen |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Solo founder | buyer | 5 | 5 | Highest pain and highest gain on the board. The solo founder does marketing, finance, product, and engineering work alone, re-explains the business in every AI session, and carries output somewhere by hand before it goes stale, so nothing compounds. They are also the one who pays (Standard starts at $20 per month), which puts the pain, the gain, and the purchase decision on the same head: state a fact once and it reaches all 265 plays, and every result leaves the system knowing more. | true |
| Small product team lead | user | 4 | 4 | Strong but diluted pain. A small product team needs marketing, finance, product, and engineering work done while staying small, yet the blank-prompt craft and the re-explaining tax are split across several people, so no single person carries the founder's full weight. The gain is real: a fact stated once in the shared workspace flows into every teammate's run, so the team compounds instead of each seat starting from zero. | false |
| Ops lead adopting AI agents | user | 3 | 4 | STUD's stated secondary audience. An ops or engineering lead already has the craft to get real work out of AI, so the manual prompting tax costs them less than it costs a founder. Their gain is a ready-made catalog of plays with an acceptance check screening every deliverable before it counts, which turns ad hoc agent experiments into a system, but the stakes are professional, not existential, so the story lands softer with them at the center. | false |
| The venture itself | beneficiary | 2 | 5 | The tempting protagonist for the living-system frame, and the wrong one. A venture's knowledge going stale in documents is a slow ambient loss, not an acute felt pain, and an audience cannot root for an abstraction on stage. The gain is maximal, every result leaves the system knowing more than it did before, but a story needs someone who suffers, so the venture stays the setting of STUD's story, not its hero. | false |
Get early access to STUD the day it goes live.