Generate ranked pain hypotheses for an account from public signals
Converts a pile of raw public signals into 4-6 falsifiable pain hypotheses, each graded by evidence strength, costed if true, and ranked by fit with your product — plus the discovery question and email opener that would test the top two. It replaces persona-based guessing with evidence-based hypotheses you can confirm or kill in one conversation.
You are an outbound strategist who builds campaigns on pain hypotheses, not personas. Your rule: a hypothesis must be specific enough to be wrong. 'They probably want more revenue' is not a hypothesis; 'their 14 open CS roles suggest ticket volume is outrunning headcount' is. I'll paste public signals I've gathered about one account — job postings, news, website copy, reviews, posts, anything. You produce: 1. SIGNAL INVENTORY — restate the signals I gave you in one line each, so we agree on the evidence base. Flag anything stale or ambiguous. 2. PAIN HYPOTHESES — 4 to 6, each with: the hypothesis in one falsifiable sentence, the signals supporting it, a confidence grade (strong / plausible / speculative), and the cost of the pain if true (time, money, risk, morale). 3. RANKING — order them by (a) evidence strength times (b) how directly my product addresses it. Show the reasoning, not just the order. 4. THE TEST — for the top 2: the discovery question that would confirm or kill each, and the email opener that leads with the observation rather than the assumption. 5. DISCARDS — hypotheses you considered and rejected, with why. This keeps me honest about what the evidence doesn't say. Rules: every hypothesis must trace to at least one signal I actually provided — no persona boilerplate. Falsifiable phrasing only. If my signals are too thin for 4 hypotheses, say so and list exactly what to go collect. Before you write anything, interview me. Ask me these questions ONE AT A TIME, waiting for my answer each time: 1. What does your product fix, and what does that pain cost customers before they buy? 2. What's the account, and who's your target buyer there? 3. Paste every signal you've collected — job posts, news, reviews, site copy, posts. More raw is better than summarized. 4. What pains do your closed-won customers most often admit in discovery? Once you have my answers, build the hypotheses.
How to use it
- 1
Copy the prompt into Claude, ChatGPT, or any LLM.
- 2
Collect signals first — 10 minutes on their careers page, news, G2, and LinkedIn gives the model real material. Paste raw content, not your summary.
- 3
Answer question 4 with real discovery patterns; it teaches the model what pain looks like in your world.
- 4
Lead outreach with the top hypothesis's observation, and hold the hypothesis itself for the prospect to confirm.
- 5
After discovery, tell the model what was confirmed or killed — the recalibration sharpens every future account.
Best practices
Respect the confidence grades: build sequences on 'strong,' test 'plausible' in discovery, and never email a 'speculative.'
Read the DISCARDS section carefully — knowing what the evidence doesn't support saves you from the confident-but-wrong opener.
Job postings are the densest pain source: what a team is hiring for is what it can't currently do. Always include them in your paste.
Chain with the trigger-event scan and hiring-signals prompts from this category — their outputs are exactly the signal inventory this prompt wants.
Example: what this looks like in practice
An SDR at a QA-automation startup gathers signals on a 300-person fintech: 6 open QA engineer roles, a status page showing two incidents last month, an engineering blog post about release velocity, and a G2 review of their app mentioning bugs. The model produces five hypotheses; top-ranked, graded strong: 'manual QA capacity can't keep pace with their stated weekly-release goal — evidenced by the hiring spree and incident pattern.' The email opener cites the six roles and the release-velocity post together. Reply from the VP Engineering: 'painfully accurate — who told you?' Discovery confirms hypothesis one in the first ten minutes.
Best fit
This prompt is one gear in a bigger machine. We orchestrate 20+ tools into outbound systems our clients own — and guarantee the results.
Apply for a Pilot Spot → →Frequently asked questions
A specific, testable claim about a problem an account probably has, grounded in observable evidence — 'their six open QA roles suggest testing can't keep pace with releases.' It differs from a persona pain ('QA leaders struggle with coverage') by being falsifiable: discovery can confirm or kill it. Outreach built on hypotheses reads as insight; outreach built on personas reads as templates.
More account & prospect research prompts
Build a 10-minute company deep-dive brief before you touch an account
Produces a one-page, source-backed account brief with a fixed six-section structure: snapshot, revenue logic, recent momentum, evidence-based pressures, two outreach angles, and landmines to avoid. It compresses the hour of tab-hopping most reps do before a tier-one account into ten minutes, and forces every claim to carry a source.
Scan an account for trigger events: news, funding, leadership moves, layoffs
Runs a structured six-month trigger-event sweep on one account — funding, leadership changes, layoffs, launches, expansion, legal news — and returns a dated, sourced signal log, the top three events ranked by outreach value, a ready-to-adapt angle for the best one, and an honest timing call including 'no trigger exists.' It turns 'why now' from a guess into evidence.
Audit a prospect list for quality before a single email goes out
Audits a prospect list before launch: completeness and duplicates, out-of-ICP rows, stale-data risks, deliverability hazards like role-based emails and sequence collisions, and an honest A-F grade with a prioritized fix list. It catches the problems that get misdiagnosed as 'copy issues' three weeks and one burned domain later.