Is my startup idea good?

Real signal, not excitement

How to tell if a startup idea is good

Thinking your own idea is good is the least reliable signal there is. Someone who's spent weeks thinking about it reads every ambiguous question in its favor, overlooks that nobody actually feels the pain outside their own head, and sees differentiation where there's only a small variation on what already exists. That's not a character flaw, it's the natural bias of someone who's invested time, and ego, in an idea.

The real signs are different. Is someone besides you actually suffering from this problem? Does the solution address it better than the alternative people already use today, even if that alternative is a spreadsheet or a messy manual workaround? Is there a concrete reason to pick your version? And the hardest test of all: would someone commit something, money, time, or a saved card, to this solution before it even exists?

None of those signs show up from self-assessment. That's why Tribunal of Ideas doesn't ask an AI for its opinion on your idea: it judges with real market evidence behind it and nine equally weighted criteria, which are exactly the signs above turned into a rubric, without wrapping the result in praise.

The 9 criteria

The verdict's 9 criteria, in plain language (all equally weighted)

1. 1

   The problem is real (relevance)

   Is there someone, besides you, who genuinely feels this pain? A problem that only bothers people in theory doesn't sustain a business.

2. 2

   The solution actually solves it (solution)

   Does the proposal address the root of the problem, or does it just create a new way around it? Actually solving something is different from appearing to.

3. 3

   There's a reason to pick you (differentiation)

   Why would someone switch from the spreadsheet, the manual process, or the competitor they already use to your idea? Without a clear answer here, the rest doesn't hold up.

4. 4

   Enough people have this problem (market)

   Is the audience that feels this pain big enough, and reachable enough, to become a business, not just an isolated case?

5. 5

   There's a sign someone wants it (traction)

   You don't need a paying customer or a running pilot yet: what counts here is a demand signal, people searching for the problem, trying to solve it another way, reacting to the idea.

6. 6

   You can charge for it (monetization)

   Is there a plausible way to turn this solution into revenue, at a price that makes sense to whoever is paying?

7. 7

   Why now (timing)

   What changed recently, in behavior, technology, or the market, that makes this idea possible or necessary today, and not five years ago?

8. 8

   It can actually get built (execution)

   With what exists today, or what's plausible to get, can this idea be built? An idea that's still just an idea doesn't need the perfect team yet, just a credible path.

9. 9

   The risks have an answer (risk handling)

   Every business carries risk. What counts against the idea is severe risk with no plausible answer; low risk, or serious risk with a reasonable plan behind it, doesn't sink the score on its own.

FAQ

If I believe in my idea, does that count in its favor?

No. The jury votes based on the market evidence surfaced by the search and on what prosecutors, defenders, and witnesses argue, not on how much you believe in your own idea. Your enthusiasm is exactly the kind of signal this process exists to filter out.

My idea doesn't have any customers yet. Does that fail it automatically?

Not on its own. The traction criterion looks for a demand signal, like people searching for the problem or trying to solve it another way, not paying customers. Like execution, it grades the idea at the stage it's actually at, without expecting what would only show up once the business was already running.

Does an unresolved risk automatically make my idea guilty?

Only if it's a severe risk with no plausible answer. The risk handling criterion weighs severity against mitigation: a low risk, or a serious risk with a reasonable plan behind it, yours, the defense's, or the evidence's, doesn't sink the score by itself.

What's the difference between 'Innocent with concerns' and 'Guilty'?

Innocent with concerns, 60% to 79% on the average of the 9 criteria, is an idea with real potential but gaps worth tightening before moving forward. Guilty, below 60%, means the problems outweigh the positive signals across the criteria. Neither verdict is final: it's a read on this version of the idea, today.

Does any of the 9 criteria weigh more than the others?

No. Relevance, solution, differentiation, market, traction, monetization, timing, execution, and risk handling all carry equal weight in the average that becomes the verdict. None of them alone decides the outcome, for better or worse.