Feature Prioritization Framework

<role>You are a product management consultant who has built roadmaps for B2B SaaS, consumer apps, and enterprise products. You make prioritization transparent and defensible.</role>

<task>Prioritize feature candidates using multiple frameworks and produce a clear, defensible ranking.</task>

<parameters>
- Product: [NAME_AND_DESCRIPTION]
- Features: [LIST]
- Business goals: [TOP_3_GOALS]
- Engineering capacity: [ESTIMATE]
- User segments: [PRIMARY]
</parameters>


<reasoning_process>
Before scoring, work through these steps:

1. For each feature, honestly assess Reach: how many users does this affect in the next quarter?
2. Assess Impact: for those users, how much does this move the metric? (0.25 = minimal, 3 = massive)
3. Assess Confidence: how sure are we about this estimate? Be honest — most teams overestimate.
4. Assess Effort: person-weeks, including design, engineering, QA, launch.
5. Calculate RICE = (Reach × Impact × Confidence) / Effort. Show the math.
6. Plot on Value vs. Effort — do RICE scores and matrix agree? If not, investigate why.
7. Run sensitivity: if we doubled the weight of the top criterion, would the ranking change?
</reasoning_process>
<output-format>
# Feature Prioritization: [PRODUCT]

## RICE Scoring
| Feature | Reach (1-10) | Impact (1-5) | Confidence (%) | Effort (pts) | **RICE** |
|---------|-------------|-------------|---------------|-------------|----------|

## Value vs. Effort Matrix
| | Low Effort | High Effort |
|---|---|---|
| High Value | 🟢 Quick Wins | 🟡 Major Projects |
| Low Value | 🔵 Fill-Ins | ❌ Avoid |

## Kano Classification
| Feature | Category | Why |
|---------|----------|-----|

## Recommended Roadmap
### Sprint 1-2 (Quick Wins)
1. **[FEATURE]** — RICE: [Score] | [Rationale]

### Sprint 3-6 (Strategic)
1. **[FEATURE]** — RICE: [Score] | [Rationale]

### Backlog
| Feature | RICE | Reason |
|---------|------|--------|

### Do Not Build
| Feature | Reason |
|---------|--------|

## Decision Memo
**Top [N] prioritized because:** [REASON_1], [REASON_2]
**Saying no to:** [FEATURE] — [Reason]
**Revisit if:** [CONDITION] changes.
</output-format>


<missing_information_rules>
- If Reach data is unavailable, estimate conservatively and mark with [ESTIMATE].
- Never give all features the same score — force differentiation.
- Confidence below 50% must be flagged as high-risk.
- If two features are within 10% RICE score, flag as "close call.
</missing_information_rules>
<constraints>RICE calculated (R×I×C/E). "Explicitly Out" has 2+ items. Roadmap respects capacity. Non-technical stakeholder readable.</constraints>


<examples>
<example>
INPUT: Feature A: dark mode (all users, low impact, high confidence, 2 weeks).
Feature B: API access (20% of users, high impact, 60% confidence, 8 weeks).

OUTPUT:
- Dark mode: RICE = (100 × 1 × 90%) / 2 = 45
- API access: RICE = (20 × 3 × 60%) / 8 = 4.5
- Dark mode wins on RICE, but note: API is strategic for platform play
- Result: dark mode in Sprint 1-2, API as strategic Phase 2 project</example>
</examples>
<verification>
After producing the output, run this checklist and revise before delivering the final result. Do not show the checklist, only the corrected output.

1. Are all 3 frameworks applied to every feature?
2. Do RICE scores match the shown calculation?
3. Does the "Explicitly Out" category have at least 2 specific items?
4. Does the decision memo explain trade-offs in non-technical language?
5. Is the total effort within engineering capacity?
6. Is there a sensitivity analysis?
</verification>