The Soracin Method
Validate before you build.
A research-backed, six-step framework for solo founders and indie hackers — designed to de-risk a SaaS idea before you waste months on the wrong thing. Work the steps in order; each has exit criteria you must clear before moving on.
The six steps follow the full arc from pre-build to early traction. Don't skip steps, and don't move forward until you can answer every exit question with a confident yes.
| Step | Core question | Key output |
|---|
| 1. Market Size & Signal Detection | Is this market real and actively signaling demand? | SOM model + 3 community signal sources |
| 2. Problem to Evidence Mapping | Is this a real problem with documented proof? | Problem Evidence Map + 5 JTBD statements |
| 3. ICP & Willingness to Pay | Who exactly pays, and how much? | ICP one-liner + Van Westendorp price range |
| 4. Competitive Moat Analysis | Why can't someone just copy this? | Moat type + differentiation statement |
| 5. MVP Scoping & RAT | What is the smallest thing worth building? | One-page MVP spec + RAT pass/fail results |
| 6. Traction Signals & GTM Fit | Is this actually working? | Retention curve + Sean Ellis score + one GTM channel |
Step 01
Discover
Market Size & Signal Detection
Is this market real, and is demand actually there right now?
What it is
Before writing a line of code, answer two questions: is the market real, and is demand building right now? This step has two inseparable parts — sizing the opportunity (TAM → SAM → SOM) and detecting genuine pull signals in the market.
Why it matters
For a solo founder, a wrong market bet costs 6–18 months of your life with no recovery capital to fall back on. The passion of building blinds you — signal detection is the antidote to that bias.
CB Insights' analysis of startup post-mortems finds "no market need" is the most-cited cause of failure (~42%) — not bad code, not bad founders. This work, done before building, directly addresses that risk.
Methods & tools
Top-down + bottom-up TAM/SAM/SOM
Convergence test
Google Trends
Keyword demand (Ahrefs / SEMrush)
Community signal detection
24-hour landing-page test
Exit criteria
- Your SOM supports at least $1M ARR potential at your target price point
- You've found 3+ community threads showing repeated, unsolved pain
- At least one stranger has paid (or attempted to pay) for a solution
- You understand why previous attempts in this space failed
Step 02
Validate
Problem to Evidence Mapping
Is this a real problem, or just a perceived one?
What it is
Turn vague observations into structured, verifiable proof. The output is a Problem Evidence Map: a living document connecting every problem assumption to a specific, real-world piece of evidence that either confirms or kills it.
Why it matters
The most expensive mistake here is validating your solution instead of the problem. Asking "would you use a tool that does X?" invites a polite yes; asking "what's the hardest part of your current workflow?" reveals whether the problem is real and how severe it is.
Rob Fitzpatrick's The Mom Test shows why most customer interviews fail: people lie to be supportive, especially when they see your passion — producing false validation that sends founders down the wrong path. The fix is to ask about past behavior, not hypothetical future use.
Methods & tools
Problem Severity grid (Unicorn / Enterprise / Vitamin / Dead)
Mom Test interviews
5-question Soracin script
"Duct tape stack" detection
Affinity mapping
JTBD statements
Exit criteria
- You've completed at least 10 interviews without pitching your solution
- 5+ people independently described the same core problem in similar language
- You've identified at least one "duct tape stack" or active workaround in use
- You have 3–5 written JTBD statements grounded in interview evidence
- You can classify the problem as Unicorn or Enterprise zone — not Vitamin
Step 03
Profile
ICP & Willingness to Pay
Who exactly is your customer, and will they pay enough to sustain you?
What it is
Define your Ideal Customer Profile and a defensible price — together. An ICP without a willingness-to-pay number is a persona; a WTP number without a tight ICP is a guess. Together they form the commercial foundation for pricing, messaging, and MVP scope.
Why it matters
For solo founders, a vague ICP is a budget killer — you have no sales team to chase a thousand leads. And you can't simply ask people what they'll pay.
A 2010 study found people's stated willingness to pay ran roughly 3× higher than their actual willingness to pay for the same product — which is why you need a method, not a hypothetical question. Per Price Intelligently, even a 1% improvement in pricing can lift profit by ~11% for a SaaS business.
Methods & tools
ICP one-liner (firmographics · triggers · technographics)
Negative ICP
Van Westendorp PSM (4 questions)
Behavioral landing-page test
Solo-founder price bands
Exit criteria
- You have an ICP one-liner specific enough to find 50 prospects right now
- You have a Negative ICP that explicitly excludes at least two customer types
- Your Van Westendorp survey reveals an acceptable price range above $49/mo
- At least one person has taken a real behavioral action signaling willingness to pay
- You can describe the trigger event that makes your ICP start looking for a solution
Step 04
Position
Competitive Moat Analysis
Why can't someone just copy this?
What it is
Identify the structural advantages you can build into your product and business that make it genuinely hard to displace over time. For a solo founder, this is about out-positioning competitors — not out-resourcing them.
Why it matters
Without a moat, any product with good margins attracts copycats who undercut your price or clone your features. Competing with funded teams on their terms is suicide; winning the angles they ignore — a tight niche, deep domain knowledge, community — is where solo founders win.
Warren Buffett coined the "moat"; Charlie Munger defines it as "the intrinsic characteristic that gives a business a durable competitive advantage." Morningstar classifies a wide moat as lasting 20+ years and a narrow moat 10+ — and a narrow moat is a perfectly valid early target.
Methods & tools
Five moat types (switching costs · network · intangibles · data · cost/speed)
Domain expertise as moat
Competitor map (direct · indirect · future · status-quo)
Differentiation axes
Moat durability stress test
Exit criteria
- You've mapped all four competitor categories with specific product names
- You've identified 2–3 differentiation axes you can realistically own
- You've written a differentiation statement your ICP would find compelling
- You've identified at least one structural moat to design in from day one
- You've stress-tested your moat against a funded team copying you
Step 05
Build
MVP Scoping & the Riskiest Assumption Test
What is the smallest thing actually worth building?
What it is
Two disciplined actions, in order. First the Riskiest Assumption Test (RAT) — cheap, fast experiments that kill your most dangerous assumptions before you write product code. Then MVP scoping — ruthlessly defining the smallest version that delivers genuine value. The RAT comes before the MVP.
Why it matters
For a solo founder who is designer, developer, marketer, and support, every week building the wrong thing is gone for good. An MVP isn't a cheap, ugly product — it's minimal in scope but complete in quality, like a cupcake rather than a half-baked wedding cake.
Validating early can cut wasted development effort by up to 60% and stop you building features users never touch. The RAT was introduced by Rik Ingram (2016): "Instead of building an MVP, identify your riskiest assumption and test it." Dropbox proved demand with a demo video that took signups from 5,000 to 75,000; Zappos photographed shoes in local stores before holding any inventory.
Methods & tools
Assumption map (desirability · viability · feasibility)
Falsifiable hypothesis + pre-set pass/fail
RAT hierarchy (landing page → fake door → demo → concierge)
MoSCoW prioritization
The "Crux"
Green / yellow / red decision gate
Exit criteria
- You've run at least 2 RAT experiments targeting your top assumptions
- At least one experiment passed its pre-set threshold with real behavioral evidence
- You have a one-page MVP spec with no more than 3 Must-Have features
- You've identified your Crux — the single thing that must work flawlessly
- At least one ICP customer has agreed to pay before you finish building
- You have a launch date within 8 weeks
Step 06
Launch
Traction Signals & Go-to-Market Fit
Is this actually working — and how do I know for certain?
What it is
Two connected disciplines. Traction signals are the metrics that show whether your product delivers durable value. Go-to-market fit is finding the one channel through which you can acquire your ICP repeatably, without burning money or your own time.
Why it matters
Early revenue from your own network is an anomaly — temporary validation easily destroyed by the market's indifference. Most solo founders stall at a revenue ceiling because they spread effort across too many channels at once. Find the one that compounds, then go deep.
Marketing problems are the second-leading cause of startup failure (~22–29%), trailing only lack of product-market fit. Use the Sean Ellis 40% test (developed by Sean Ellis, former growth lead at Dropbox): if 40%+ of active users would be "very disappointed" to lose your product, you have early PMF. Over 35% retention at 8 weeks is considered elite for SaaS.
Methods & tools
Retention-curve flattening
Sean Ellis 40% PMF test
Organic-growth share
Net Revenue Retention
Churn diagnosis (<4% monthly)
One channel, 90 days (content · community · integrations · founder-led)
Exit criteria
- Your week-4 retention curve is visibly flattening
- At least 40% of active users say they'd be "very disappointed" without your product
- At least 30% of new customers arrived organically, not through founder hustle
- Monthly churn is under 4%
- One repeatable GTM channel produced at least three customers without heroic effort
- You've made your 90-day decision: pivot, persevere, or kill
The framework, end to end
| Step | Core question | Exit condition |
|---|
| 1 · Market & Signal | Is the market real and signaling demand? | SOM supports $1M+ ARR; 3+ signal sources confirmed |
| 2 · Problem Evidence | Is this a real, documented problem? | 10+ interviews; 5+ JTBD statements; duct-tape stack found |
| 3 · ICP & Pricing | Who pays, and how much? | ICP one-liner written; WTP above $49/mo confirmed behaviorally |
| 4 · Moat | Why can't this be copied? | Moat designed in; differentiation statement written |
| 5 · MVP & RAT | What is the smallest worthwhile build? | RAT passed; one-page spec; launch within 8 weeks |
| 6 · Traction & GTM | Is it working? | 40% Sean Ellis; flattening retention; one repeatable channel |