3.3.2 - Name the Risks Yourself Before Users Find Them in Production

Name the launch risk: say what might break, what would trigger it and what response reduces the damage.

Launch risk

Have you named the biggest risks before users hit them?

The call

Name the launch risks before users find them. Otherwise the first real user session becomes the risk discovery process.

Sharpen the launch risk with AI

This is a Launch idea, so there are two AI moves: first Sharpen the launch risk using the prompt below, then Build it with AI, building carefully to carry the decision into the live system. This idea also calls for Run it for real.

New here? Let your AI do this with you. Paste your problem into Guide me and it builds a prompt that walks you through this in ChatGPT or Claude. You do not need to know how to prompt.

Prefer to drive the AI yourself? Give ChatGPT or Claude this page and ask it to help. For skill.txt, the Claude Code plugin and other ways in, see how to use vibe2value.

Or copy this prompt into AI chat, replace the bracketed lines with your real launch risk and keep the instruction exactly as visible here. It helps you put your launch/launch-risks.md together by refining your three lines until two people would make the same product decision from them.

You are checking whether this launch risk is clear enough before you move forward.

Constraint:
The launch risk must be specific enough that two people would prepare for the same failure from it.

Example of the standard:
Vague: "There are probably some edge cases we have not thought of."
Sharp: "If a content creator’s saved context contains only a few words, the AI search may return results no different from a generic search. The trigger is any context shorter than a sentence. The response is to prompt the user to add more detail before running the search."
The sharp version is specific enough that two people would prepare for the same failure. The vague one is not.

Working draft:
Risk: [what might break]
Likely trigger: [what would trigger it]
Fallback or mitigation: [what response reduces the damage]

Task:
Decide whether this launch risk is specific enough that two people would prepare for the same failure. If it already is, say so. If it is vague, rewrite it to meet the standard in the example above.

Check:
- Would two people interpret this the same way?
- Does it stay concrete enough to guide the next step?
- Can you state what might break, what would trigger it and what response reduces the damage?

Return:
- Verdict: clear, or needs work
- The corrected three lines, or the original three if already clear
- What was vague, and the one change that fixed it

Copy this into AI chat. Replace the bracketed parts. Keep the rest unchanged. AI will likely suggest refinements based on what you enter. Use those to sharpen your thinking, not replace it.

There are six ways to work with AI across a build. This idea's AI moves are noted above. See Working with AI for all six and where each fits.

The same idea on a recipe card

As the guests arrive, a careful cook runs through what could still go wrong: "this oven runs hot so the top might catch, I will move it down a shelf and check at ten minutes." You find the danger yourself, early, with a fix already in hand. The alternative is a guest finding the burnt bit for you, at the table.

Naming the launch risks is that run-through before serving. For each one say what could break, what would set it off and the response you have ready. Spot the hot oven yourself while you can still move the tray, rather than letting the first real user be the one who discovers it.

The recipe card is just a simple example, using everyday cooking ideas everyone understands, to make the concept clear. See the recipe card.

What it really means

A launch risk is not a vague worry. It is a specific thing that might break, what would trigger it and what response is ready. Until you can name one failure mode, one trigger and one response, launch risks stay invisible until users hit them. AI can help enumerate scenarios, but it cannot decide which ones matter.

Make the launch risk concrete

Compare the broad version with a version you can actually test.

Too vague: There are probably some edge cases we have not thought of.
Concrete enough to test: If a content creator’s saved context contains only a few words, the AI search may return results no different from a generic search. The trigger is any context shorter than a sentence. The response is to prompt the user to add more detail before running the search.

The second version lets two people make the same decision from it.

Every risk you do not name before launch becomes one a user finds for you, in public. Naming them on your side while they are cheap to fix is what wins trust: the launch surprises no one, including you. Leave them, and users find them, and that is what loses it.

Check the launch risk

Pass: You can say what might break, what would trigger it and what response reduces the damage.
Fail: If launch risk still means there might be some issues, it is not named well enough yet.

Do not launch until this passes.

What you'll walk away with

This post is about the framing decision: the words that pin down what this idea actually means for your build, before any code. You'll come out with your own knowledge-base/launch/launch-risks.md written and sharpened: the launch risk pinned down as a decision, three worked examples to map against your own surface and an AI prompt that pressure-tests it until two people would make the same call.

Write it down

Your launch-risks.md is a real file in your project. The AI forgets everything between sessions. It reads this file each time to pick up what you already decided, on this idea or another part of the build. Write it down once instead of explaining it again.

knowledge-base/shape-build-launch/launch/launch-risks.md is just a suggested name and place for this information. The name and the location are just how we organise this type of documentation, not something you have to follow. Call the file and put it wherever suits your project. What matters is that it is written down in a format that is easily understood by both people and the AI.

The .md ending is markdown, a plain text format often used for documents kept in a code repository like GitHub. It is just the common way people store this kind of writing alongside their code.

Writing it down is how you keep good context for your AI. See Keep the signal, not the noise for why this matters across a whole build.

Risk and mitigation

Risk: Launching without naming risks, which turns the first user session into the risk discovery process.
Mitigation: Name one launch risk per user-facing flow and prepare a response before shipping.

Key takeaway

Do not move forward until you can say what might break, what would trigger it and what response reduces the damage.

How to document your launch risk

Write your launch risk up in full so your AI has the whole picture: the answer, why you believe it, what you are optimising for, where you might be wrong and the standing instruction it should follow. Keep it in a file with your project like this.

# Launch risk

## Answer
Risk: [what might break]
Likely trigger: [what would trigger it]
Fallback or mitigation: [what response reduces the damage]

## Evidence
Why you believe this. Conversations, examples, tickets, your own experience.

## Decision
What you are optimising for and what you are saying no to.

## Risk
Where you might be wrong and what would tell you.

## AI instruction
The standing note your AI reads on this project.

Here is one filled in so you can see what good looks like, grounded in the recipe card idea from earlier.

## Answer
Risk: The top of the dish catches and burns
Likely trigger: This oven runs hot
Fallback or mitigation: Move it down a shelf and check at ten minutes

## Evidence
This oven has burned the tops of two dishes at the stated time, so it clearly runs hot.

## Decision
Optimising for naming the burn risk before serving. Saying no to trusting the recipe time on this oven.

## Risk
Moving it down could leave the top pale instead. Check at ten minutes and adjust rather than set and forget.

## AI instruction
The launch risk is the top catching and burning because this oven runs hot. Move the dish down a shelf and check it at ten minutes rather than trusting the timer.

Common questions

The demo worked. Isn't that enough to launch?
A demo is the happy path. Real users take paths you did not plan. Name where it could break before they find it for you.
How is naming launch risks different from testing?
It is the same instinct. Testing is just naming what could fail and checking it on purpose. More in A testing mindset for trusting AI.
I cannot test everything. Where do I start?
The parts that would hurt most if they broke in front of a real user. Trust is earned by checking those, not by hoping.
Isn't it better to launch and fix what breaks?
Only for the risks you can afford to be surprised by. Name the ones you cannot and check those first.

What now?

Apply it. Guide me turns what you are building into a prompt that walks you through this idea.

Get all 27. The guide is a free coffee-length read with the whole method. Join free and it is yours to download.

Get a hand. Work with me and we will work out together what is worth doing. The first conversation is free.