Glossary

A verdict issued when the Opportunity Score exceeds the BUILD threshold (typically 75/100 or above), the adversary review has been satisfied, and the evidence supports forward investment. A BUILD verdict means the underwriting supports committing product capacity to this opportunity. It is a thesis rating, not a financial guarantee or revenue forecast.

A verdict issued when the Opportunity Score falls in the conditional range (typically 45–74/100) and adversary risks are present but not decisive. A WATCH verdict means the opportunity is real but not yet clear enough to justify a build commitment. The memo will include specific monitoring triggers that, if observed, would support re-underwriting for a BUILD verdict.

A verdict issued when the Opportunity Score falls below the kill threshold (typically below 45/100) and/or adversary evidence is decisive: the structural case against the opportunity outweighs the case for it. A KILL verdict is not a permanent ban on a category. It means the opportunity does not justify commitment at the current time, based on current evidence.

A composite score from 0 to 100, produced by weighting and aggregating the six decision criteria: Search Accessibility, Monetization Signal, Incumbent Defensibility, Category Saturation, Trend Trajectory, and Execution Fit. The score is not a simple average. Criteria are weighted based on their importance to the specific opportunity and market context. A score alone does not determine the verdict; adversary review findings can override a high score.

The classification of an evidence finding based on how it was obtained. AppSniper uses five tiers: T1 Observed (directly measurable), T2 Derived (calculated from observed inputs), T3 Inferred (derived from indirect patterns), T4 Operator-Locked (context-specific to the requesting operator), and T5 Adversary (counter-thesis evidence). Higher tiers carry higher weight; every finding in a Decision Memo is tagged with its tier.

A mandatory step in the AppSniper underwriting process where the strongest possible case against the opportunity is constructed. The adversary review covers platform policy risk, incumbent counter-move probability, market timing risk, and data quality caveats. A BUILD verdict cannot be issued without a satisfactory adversary review. The adversary case must be assessed and found insufficient to block the opportunity before a BUILD can be issued.

A decision checkpoint at which the underwriting verdict determines whether a project advances to the next stage. In a studio or portfolio context, an AppSniper audit functions as the pre-build gate: concepts must pass underwriting before engineering capacity is allocated. The gate is designed to prevent the common failure mode of building first and validating second.

The ongoing process of comparing AppSniper verdicts against real-world outcomes to improve evidence weighting and threshold accuracy over time. When an operator launches a BUILD, AppSniper tracks the outcome and updates the calibration model. Over time, verdict accuracy becomes measurable. That is what separates underwriting from opinion.

The primary output artifact of an AppSniper Opportunity Audit. A structured document containing: a unique memo ID, the underwriting thesis, full evidence stack (each item tier-tagged and scored), adversary review section, Opportunity Score, verdict (BUILD / WATCH / KILL), confidence level, and Next Action Protocol. Decision Memos are designed to be shared with team members, boards, and investors as a defensible record of pre-build diligence.

The specific claim about an opportunity that the underwriting process is designed to evaluate. The thesis is established before any evidence is collected. A well-formed thesis specifies: the target category, the proposed positioning, the operator's proposed distribution advantage, and the success condition. Underwriting without a defined thesis produces unfocused analysis.

Decision Criterion C1. Measures whether new entrants can acquire users organically through App Store search without extraordinary investment. Scored on keyword difficulty, non-branded term volume, brand lock-in degree, and category CPI proxy. A HIGH rating means organic discovery is structurally viable for a new app.

Decision Criterion C3. Measures how entrenched the leading competitors are in a category. Scored on review moat depth (review count × average rating), brand term keyword ownership, update cadence, and switching cost indicators. A LOW defensibility rating indicates incumbents are vulnerable to displacement by a well-executed new entrant.

Decision Criterion C6. The only operator-specific criterion in the underwriting framework. Scores how well the requesting operator's existing distribution capabilities, team expertise, and portfolio cross-sell potential align with the requirements for success in this specific category. The same category opportunity will produce different Execution Fit scores for different operators.

The competitive advantage an incumbent app holds by virtue of a large, high-quality review base. A review moat creates a trust signal that new entrants cannot replicate organically in the short term. AppSniper quantifies review moat depth as part of Incumbent Defensibility scoring. A deep review moat is one of the most reliable WATCH or KILL signals in the framework.

The closing section of every Decision Memo. Specifies the exact recommended next steps based on the verdict. For BUILD: when to begin and what conditions to monitor. For WATCH: what specific signals to track and what thresholds would trigger re-underwriting. For KILL: what structural conditions would need to change for the category to become viable, if ever.