📋 Template companion to the Module 4 post. Run after your one-page brief is signed. Print, fill in 30 minutes, write your chosen path at the top of your Notion doc.

Build Path Decision Worksheet - 5 Questions, 4 Paths

Print one side of paper. Pen. 30 minutes alone. Walk out with a defensible build decision and the next module to read.

Why this exists

A wellness-coaching founder we picked up in Q1 2026 had spent four months building a Lovable MVP, then panicked and signed a $24K-per-month agency contract because three advisors told her “you need a real team now.” Two of the advisors had never seen her validation data. The third had not asked.

She showed us the contract on a Tuesday. By Friday we had walked her through the same 5 questions on this worksheet and the matrix said Path 3 (Fractional CTO at $2,400/mo, 8 hours/week), not Path 4 (the agency at $24K/mo). She paid the agency a kill fee and saved 14 months of runway. The decision was already in the data she had. The advisors had not run the worksheet. Cheaper to spend 30 minutes with this page than to spend a quarter undoing a contract somebody else’s instinct signed for you.

How to use this

Friday afternoon, alone, 30 minutes, before coffee runs out. Bring three documents: your filled-in Validated Problem Statement from Chapter 2.1, your filled-in one-page brief from Chapter 3.1, and a current bank statement showing months of runway. Pen on paper. Phone in another room.

Answer the five questions in order. Each one is factual, not aspirational. “Number of paying pre-orders” is a count from your Stripe dashboard, not a vibe. “Months of runway” is cash on hand divided by monthly burn, not a guess. The matrix at the bottom routes you to Path 1, 2, 3, or 4 based on the five answers.

If you spill past 30 minutes, you are negotiating with yourself. Stop, write the verdict the data supports, take it to one peer or advisor for a 20-minute call, and move on.

Total time budget: 30 minutes alone, 20 minutes with one peer, 0 minutes second-guessing. Tomorrow you start the path the worksheet picked.

The 5 questions - check the box that matches

=========== BUILD PATH DECISION WORKSHEET ===========

Founder: _________________  Date: ____________________

one-page brief finalized on: ____________________

Months of runway in the bank: ________________________

Q1: Is the problem validated?

------------------------------------------------------
Q1. Is the problem validated?
------------------------------------------------------

Counts as YES only if all 3 below are true:
 [ ] 10 or more Mom Test interviews complete
 [ ] Strong past-behavior signal in at least 7 of 10
 [ ] 2 to 5 pre-orders, paid pilots, or annual deposits
     on the table (real money, refundable is fine)

LinkedIn likes do not count. "They said they would
buy" does not count. Money or a procurement-call
calendar invite counts.

VERDICT: [ ] Yes    [ ] No

If NO -> stop here. Path 1 (Validate without code).
        Run the Airbnb test this week.

If YES -> go to Q2.

Q2: How backend-heavy is the build?

------------------------------------------------------
Q2. How backend-heavy is the build?
------------------------------------------------------

Check every TRUE row:
 [ ] Real-time updates (WebSockets, server-sent events)
 [ ] Background queues with retry logic
 [ ] AI inference inside the request path,
     >$0.01 per call
 [ ] Multi-tenant data with row-level security
 [ ] 5 or more third-party API integrations
 [ ] Regulated data (HIPAA, SOC 2, PCI scope)

VERDICT:
 [ ] 0-1 boxes checked   = LIGHT backend
 [ ] 2-3 boxes checked   = MID backend
 [ ] 4 or more checked   = HEAVY backend

If HEAVY -> Path 4 (Hire a team - see [hire-track reference](/course/tech-for-non-technical-founders-2026/hire-track-supplementary-reference/)).
            Read the SOW guide before kickoff.

If LIGHT or MID -> go to Q3.

Q3: What is your runway?

------------------------------------------------------
Q3. What is your runway?
------------------------------------------------------

Months of cash until you must show paying customers:

 [ ] Less than 4 months
 [ ] 4 to 12 months
 [ ] 12 or more months

If LESS THAN 4 -> Path 1 (Validate without code),
                  regardless of how validated you
                  feel. The Airbnb test is the only
                  experiment that fits in the window.

If 4 TO 12 -> Paths 2, 3 are on the table. Go to Q4.

If 12+ -> Paths 2, 3, 4 are on the table. Go to Q4.

Q4: What is your monthly engineering budget?

------------------------------------------------------
Q4. What is your monthly engineering budget?
------------------------------------------------------

Money you can commit for at least 6 months:

 [ ] $0 to $400/wk of your own time
 [ ] $1,600 to $4,000/mo (Fractional CTO band)
 [ ] $5,000 to $30,000/mo (small team band)
 [ ] $30,000+ /mo (multi-person team band)

If $0-$400 -> Path 2 (Self-serve / Module 4).
              Paste one-page brief into Lovable.

If $1.6K-$4K -> go to Q5.

If $5K-$30K -> Path 3 (Fractional CTO) until problem
               complexity demands more.

If $30K+ -> Path 4 (Hire a team - see [hire-track reference](/course/tech-for-non-technical-founders-2026/hire-track-supplementary-reference/)).

Q5: Senior engineer in your network for 1 hour of architecture review per month?

------------------------------------------------------
Q5. Senior engineer in your network for 1 hour
    of architecture review per month?
------------------------------------------------------

A real human you can text. Returns calls within 48 hrs.
Has shipped a backend at scale in the last 5 years.

 [ ] Yes, named: ___________________________________
 [ ] No

If YES -> Path 2 (Self-serve / Module 4).
          Use them for the monthly architecture call
          + worst-route code review.

If NO -> Path 3 (Fractional CTO bridge).
         Buy the same insurance commercially.

======================================================
THE 4-PATH VERDICT (write your row at the top of
your Notion doc)
======================================================

The 4-path verdict table

Failure mode to watch for each path ->

• Path 1 -> 0 of 35 click. Pivot the pitch or the problem.
• Path 2 -> Hits architectural ceiling at ~5K users. Route to 6B for next layer.
• Path 3 -> CTO drifts into coder. 90-day review on hour allocation.
• Path 4 -> Spaceship for the wrong moon. Friday demo + Org Chart audit catch it in week 3.

What good looks like vs what bad looks like

Q1 - Problem validated

Bad: “I posted on LinkedIn and got 47 likes and 12 comments. People love the idea.”

Good: “I ran 12 Mom Test calls (May 2026 sample). 9 of 12 described the exact problem in past-tense with a number attached (hours per week, dollars per month). 3 of 9 said yes to a $200 refundable deposit on the spot. 2 wired the deposit by Friday.”

The good answer is countable: 12 calls, 9 strong signals, 3 yes-on-the-spot, 2 wired money. The bad answer is a vibe metric (likes) and a hypothetical (love the idea). Likes do not pay invoices. The matrix routes the bad answer to Path 1 regardless of how confident the founder feels, because the data is not there.

Q4 - Monthly engineering budget

Bad: “We have $400K in the bank and we will spend whatever it takes to ship.”

Good: "$420K in the bank. Burn is $28K/month (founder salary + tools + ads). 15 months of runway. I can commit $4K/month to engineering for the next 6 months without dipping into the marketing budget I need to test the channel."

The good answer ties budget to runway and to the marketing test that proves the channel. Bad answer commits the bank without a denominator. The matrix routes the bad answer to Path 4 (hire a team) on the founder’s confidence, which is the path that runs them out of money. The good answer routes to Path 3 (Fractional CTO at $4K/mo) which fits inside 15 months of runway with the marketing budget intact.

Q5 - Senior engineer in your network

Bad: “Yes, my college roommate is a software engineer at Google.”

Good: “Yes - Maya Chen, ex-Stripe payments backend, currently fractional. Returns texts within a few hours. She agreed to a 1-hour architecture call on the first Monday of every month at $300/hr. First call booked for Sept 7.”

The good answer names the person, the relevant experience (Stripe payments backend, not Google ads), the cadence (first Monday), the price ($300/hr), and the next call (Sept 7). Bad answer names a person without the cadence or the agreement. “My roommate is an engineer” is not a check-in. The matrix counts only the named, scheduled, paid arrangement.

What to do after

• Write your verdict at the top of a fresh Notion doc. One line: “Path X (name). Started: [date]. Next module: [6A / 6B / 5.2 / Module 2 retake].” Pin the doc. Re-read the line every Monday for 4 weeks.
• Share the worksheet result with one peer or advisor in a 20-minute call. Not three. One. Ask them: “If the matrix said Path X, what would change your mind?” Their first answer is the assumption you should pressure-test next. If they cannot name one, the matrix verdict holds.
• Schedule the first action for tomorrow morning. Path 1: ship the Carrd page. Path 2: paste one-page brief into Lovable. Path 3: 3 LinkedIn outreach messages to Fractional CTOs in your industry. Path 4: read the SOW clause-by-clause with a printed pen, not in Google Docs. Calendar the action with a hard start time. The worksheet routes the decision; the calendar invite routes the work.

Skip this worksheet and route on advisor instinct and you’re the founder who, six weeks later, signs a contract the data did not support and posts a salvage or rebuild question when the build runs over budget. The matrix is cheaper than the contract it prevents.

If you want the doctrine in long form, the Module 4 post walks through the Airbnb test, the Rob Walling shed-vs-skyscraper warning, and the worked example for each of the four paths.

Built by JetThoughts as part of the From Idea to First Paying Customer curriculum.