How pmtoolkit Thinks About Frameworks

A framework is a way to make a decision faster, not better. The math doesn't know your context. You do. These docs reflect a few opinions we hold about how PMs should use the calculators in this toolkit.

Trust the math when inputs are honest

A RICE score with made-up Reach and 90% Confidence on everything is worse than no score. The framework only helps if the inputs survive a 30-second sanity check: "Where did this number come from? Would I bet money on it?"

When the inputs are grounded (real analytics for Reach, real interviews for Confidence), the ranking is useful. When they aren't, the ranking is theatre dressed as rigour.

Use judgement when the math goes weird

Two features tied within 10%? Pick the one that teaches you more. A platform investment scoring low on RICE but unlocking three future features? Override and document why. The score is one input. Strategy, sequencing, team morale, and learning value all matter and none of them fit cleanly inside a multiplication.

If you're overriding the score more than 30% of the time, the framework is the wrong tool. Switch frameworks or drop the scoring entirely.

Benchmarks: where ours come from

Most benchmarks in PM are loosely sourced. We try hard not to invent numbers. When a doc says "typical SaaS churn is 5-7% monthly" without a citation, treat it as illustrative -- a reasonable starting point, not a target. We cite sources when we have them and mark numbers "illustrative" when we don't. If you spot an unsourced claim, that's a bug. File it.

Rigour vs rigour theatre

Rigour: a scoring session that ends in 20 minutes with three decisions and a written justification.

Rigour theatre: a 90-minute meeting where six people debate whether Impact is 2.5 or 3, the spreadsheet has 14 columns, and no one ships anything that quarter.

The difference isn't the depth of the analysis. It's whether the analysis changed a decision. If the same features would have been chosen without the framework, you ran theatre. Score fewer features, faster, and ship.

When a framework is the wrong tool

Skip the scoring math when:

You have fewer than 5 items to compare. Just decide.
The goal is ambiguous. Define the goal first. A score against a fuzzy goal is fiction.
It's a strategic bet (a new market, a platform pivot). RICE will rank it low and be wrong. Use a memo, not a matrix.
The work is sequenced (you must build A before B). Sequence is a constraint, not a score.

How to read these docs

Each framework doc follows the same shape:

When to use this / When NOT to use this: tradeoffs upfront, so you can skip the rest if it's the wrong tool.
Inputs: plain-English definitions of every variable.
The math: the formula, then one paragraph explaining it.
A worked example: real numbers, end to end.
How pmtoolkit does it differently: what our calculator adds on top of the textbook version.
Common mistakes: the failure modes we see most.
Try it: live calculator, MCP tool name, and related docs.

Read the "When NOT to use this" section first. Half the value of a framework is knowing when to put it down.