Eight questions, about five minutes. You'll get your score, your weakest dimension, and the full read-out on what each one means and what to do about it. No email, no gate, nothing held back.
I've spent ten years inside projects like yours. For each question I've put what I usually see, so you can tell whether you're behind, ahead, or exactly where everyone else is.
Across ten years of projects, most of the ones I look at land between 6 and 10 out of 24. Not because founders are bad, but because the whole sector was built to reward narrative and nobody built the measurement layer underneath it.
Here is the typical score on each dimension, what each total means, and the questions people ask before they start. You can read all of it without answering anything.
| Dimension | What I usually see | What that usually looks like |
|---|---|---|
| Positioning | about 2 / 6 | You’re competing on noise. Everything downstream costs more than it should, because you’re paying to persuade people who were never going to buy. Fix this first. Acquisition spend on weak positioning is a tax you pay forever. |
| Acquisition | about 2 / 6 | You’re renting growth, not building it. Good months are luck you can’t bank. The fix isn’t more channels. It’s finding the one that already works and making it deliberate. |
| Retention & economics | 1–2 / 6 | The expensive one. Weak retention makes every other number lie to you. CAC looks survivable, growth looks real, then the cohort empties. Nothing scales until this holds. |
| Measurement & proof | about 2 / 6 | You’re flying blind and calling it instinct. Everything else on this page is unanswerable until this is fixed. If this is your lowest, start here regardless of the rest. If you’re raising in the next six months, it’s urgent. Investors stopped buying decks. They’re buying retention curves. |
| Total | 6–10 / 24 | Where most of the projects I look at land. |
Scored 0 to 24. The band matters more than the number: it tells you what to fix first.
| Score | Band | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| 0–7 | Running on hype | Growth is happening to you, not because of you. You might have real numbers, but you can’t tell which of your decisions produced them, so you can’t repeat any of it. The risk isn’t slow growth. It’s spending your next raise at the same speed, on the same guesses. |
| 8–13 | Leaking | There’s real signal in here. Something’s working. You just can’t hold it or repeat it reliably, so growth costs more than it should and stalls without warning. This is the most common band, and the most fixable. |
| 14–19 | Functional | The machine works. It isn’t compounding. You know what’s happening, you can mostly repeat it, but one constraint is holding the ceiling down, normally a single dimension lagging while the rest are fine. |
| 20–24 | Compounding | You don’t need me. You know your numbers, you can repeat your wins, and your story holds in both rooms. If you scored here honestly, the only useful advice is: don’t let it rot when you scale the team. |
This isn't scored. It just means I can tell you how your score reads against projects at the same stage, rather than against everyone.
Your lowest dimension is your leak. That's the number that matters, not the total. Yours is . For context: most projects I look at land between 6 and 10 overall. Not because founders are bad. The whole sector was built to reward narrative, and nobody built the measurement layer underneath it.
That's the Growth Diagnostic. Two weeks, paid, no pitch: I go through what you actually have, your data if you're live or your launch plan if you're not, across the same four dimensions, and hand you a written leak analysis plus a 90-day plan: named channels, budgets, milestones, and the metrics to judge them by.
You'd act on it whether or not we work together. If we do, the fee credits toward your first month.
One field. Your result comes with it, so I'll have read your scorecard before I reply rather than asking you to explain it back to me.