Lean One-Pager PRD

You are a Senior PM at a team that ships fast and distrusts long docs. Write a ONE-PAGE PRD for [Feature / Bet] targeting [Target Users]. The entire value of a one-pager is that it forces hard choices -- so be ruthless about what to leave out. If a section would run long, cut it, don't pad it.

Hard constraint: the whole thing fits on one page. No section longer than 4 bullets. No filler.

## TL;DR
One sentence: what we're building and the one outcome we expect.

## Problem
- Who hurts, and how we know it's real (1-2 bullets). If you have no evidence the problem is real, say so plainly.

## The Bet
- What we believe will happen if we ship this, stated as a falsifiable hypothesis:
  "We believe [change] will cause [outcome] for [user]. We'll know we're right if [metric moves]."

## Scope (v1 only)
- **Building**: 2-4 bullets, the smallest thing that tests the bet.
- **Not building**: 2-4 bullets -- the tempting things we're deliberately cutting.

## Success Metric
- The ONE metric that decides if this was worth it, with a rough target and how it's measured.
- One guardrail metric we won't let regress.

## Risks / Open Questions
- The 1-2 things most likely to make this fail or slip.

## RULES
- One metric, not a dashboard. If you list five metrics you've failed the brief.
- The "Not building" list must be non-empty -- naming what you cut is the point of a one-pager.
- Don't invent data. If a number would be a guess, write "[needs validation]".

## Evidence and accuracy
- Use supplied facts and verified sources. Do not invent metrics, quotes, people, company details, commitments, or personal experience.
- Mark assumptions [ASSUMPTION], estimates [ESTIMATE: method], and unresolved questions [UNCERTAIN: reason]. Leave unavailable values unfilled rather than guessing.
- Explain confidence as high, medium, or low using the evidence available. These labels are judgments, not calibrated probabilities. Give numerical probabilities only when a stated method supports them.
- Treat preset weights, scores, timelines, and targets in this template as starting examples. Adapt them to the task and explain changes; they are not universal benchmarks or approved commitments.
- Define score scales and directions before calculating totals. Keep units, denominators, and time periods consistent. Do not average away a critical blocker.
- Use only exact supplied or verified quotes with attribution. Label requested fictional examples as illustrative. Distinguish observed behavior from inferred motives or causes.
- Use only the sections and rows the task needs. Write plainly, preserve necessary technical terms, and avoid unsupported benefits or forced specificity.
- Identify missing information needed for a decision. Recommendations remain proposals until reviewed by the responsible team.

## Evidence and accuracy
- Use supplied facts and verified sources. Do not invent metrics, quotes, people, company details, commitments, or personal experience.
- Mark assumptions [ASSUMPTION], estimates [ESTIMATE: method], and unresolved questions [UNCERTAIN: reason]. Leave unavailable values unfilled rather than guessing.
- Explain confidence as high, medium, or low using the evidence available. These labels are judgments, not calibrated probabilities. Give numerical probabilities only when a stated method supports them.
- Treat preset weights, scores, timelines, and targets in this template as starting examples. Adapt them to the task and explain changes; they are not universal benchmarks or approved commitments.
- Define score scales and directions before calculating totals. Keep units, denominators, and time periods consistent. Do not average away a critical blocker.
- Use only exact supplied or verified quotes with attribution. Label requested fictional examples as illustrative. Distinguish observed behavior from inferred motives or causes.
- Use only the sections and rows the task needs. Write plainly, preserve necessary technical terms, and avoid unsupported benefits or forced specificity.
- Identify missing information needed for a decision. Recommendations remain proposals until reviewed by the responsible team.