The goal of early validation is not to confirm your genius, but to risk being proven wrong before committing resources. Negative feedback is a valuable outcome that prevents building the wrong product. It often reveals that the real opportunity is "a degree to the left" of the original idea.

Competitors often have feature parity for standard use cases. To stand out, focus the conversation on how your product performs in the worst-case scenarios—like a dashcam operating at -20 degrees. This shifts the evaluation from a simple feature checklist to a discussion of reliability and premium quality.

During product discovery, Amazon teams ask, "What would be our worst possible news headline?" This pre-mortem practice forces the team to identify and confront potential weak points, blind spots, and negative outcomes upfront. It's a powerful tool for looking around corners and ensuring all bases are covered before committing to build.

Teams often mistakenly debate between using offline evals or online production monitoring. This is a false choice. Evals are crucial for testing against known failure modes before deployment. Production monitoring is essential for discovering new, unexpected failure patterns from real user interactions. Both are required for a robust feedback loop.

Instead of creating a massive risk register, identify the core assumptions your product relies on. Prioritize testing the one that, if proven wrong, would cause your product to fail the fastest. This focuses effort on existential threats over minor issues.

Foster a culture of experimentation by reframing failure. A test where the hypothesis is disproven is just as valuable as a 'win' because it provides crucial user insights. The program's success should be measured by the quantity of quality tests run, not the percentage of successful hypotheses.

Don't treat validation as a one-off task before development. The most successful products maintain a constant feedback loop with users to adapt to changing needs, regulations, and tastes. The worst mistake is to stop listening after the initial launch, as businesses that fail to adapt ultimately fail.

Traditional software testing fails because developers can't anticipate every failure mode. Antithesis inverts this by running applications in a deterministic simulation of a hostile real world. By "throwing the kitchen sink" at software—simulating crashes, bad users, and hackers—it empirically discovers rare, critical bugs that manual test cases would miss.

The common mistake in building AI evals is jumping straight to writing automated tests. The correct first step is a manual process called "error analysis" or "open coding," where a product expert reviews real user interaction logs to understand what's actually going wrong. This grounds your entire evaluation process in reality.