Run a pivot decision when the current approach isn't working
Persistence and stubbornness look identical from the inside — the real evidence is what tells them apart.
- Outcome
- An honest read on whether the current approach's problems are fixable or fundamental, a genuinely considered set of pivot directions grounded in what's actually been learned, and a decision made on evidence rather than sunk cost or founder fatigue.
- Time
- Several hours across sessions, informed by evidence gathered over the preceding weeks
This workflow is part of PromptKit Pro
A handful of prompts and workflows stay free for everyone — Pro unlocks the full library, including this one, plus the guided runner.
When a startup's current approach isn't working, persisting through the hard part and stubbornly avoiding a needed change look identical from the inside — both feel like "pushing through." What actually distinguishes them is whether the specific problems are fixable execution issues or a fundamental mismatch no amount of execution would fix. This playbook diagnoses which one it is, develops real pivot directions grounded in what's actually been learned, and decides based on that evidence rather than sunk cost or fatigue.
When not to use this
If things are working reasonably well and this is just a rough patch with clear, fixable causes, this full process is overkill — fix the specific issue and continue. This is for when the current approach itself seems genuinely not to be working.
Did this work?
The decision to pivot, adjust, or push through is grounded in specific evidence about what's actually not working, not sunk cost, fatigue, or a vague feeling that something should change.
Tested on claude-opus-5. Evidence status is draft; it moves to battle-tested only on recorded runs, never by hand.