Why Most PRDs Fail (And How Evidence Fixes Them)
Every product team writes PRDs. Very few write PRDs that survive the first sprint review. The gap isn't talent or process — it's evidence. Most specs are built on assumptions dressed up as requirements.
Idris Shaaba
Founder/CEO, Choices
The assumption trap
Here's what a typical PRD looks like: a PM spends 3 days writing a document based on a stakeholder request, a competitor screenshot, and a gut feeling about what users want. Engineering reads it, asks "why?", and gets back "because the VP said so."
"I got hit with three late-payment fees this quarter and had zero warning. I'd pay for an app that just told me." — r/freelance, 214 upvotes
That single quote carries more signal than a 40-page strategy deck. It's specific, it's real, and it points directly at a solvable problem. Evidence-first PRDs start here.
What evidence-first looks like
- Every requirement traces to a real user quote, data point, or market signal
- Assumptions are labeled as assumptions — not hidden as facts
- Scoring replaces gut: impact × evidence strength × effort = priority
- The spec is alive — Mission Control can update it as new evidence arrives
The three-layer citation model
At Choices, every insight passes through three layers before it becomes a requirement: raw evidence (the quote or data point), the semantic cluster (the theme it belongs to), and the scored opportunity (the ranked problem). If a requirement can't trace back through all three, it doesn't make the spec.
Ship specs, not novels
The best PRDs are short, cited, and editable. They answer three questions: what are we building, why now (with evidence), and how will we know it worked. Everything else is noise that decays the moment it's written.
If your PRDs keep dying in sprint review, the fix isn't better writing — it's better evidence. Start with the quotes. Let them tell you what to build.