# Example 15 — Case study: boss says the product needs more wow factor

## Why this case matters

This is the kind of PM situation where a general-purpose model often makes things worse.
The input sounds energetic, but it is still not a usable product question.

## Scene

A founder or boss says the product needs more “wow factor” because competitors look more exciting in demos.
The team is now in danger of building flashy nonsense.

## Raw messy input

> “Our AI product needs more wow factor. Competitors feel more exciting in demos. Help me think through what we should do.”

## What a weak default answer often does badly

- jumps straight into feature brainstorming
- treats “wow factor” like a clear product goal
- assumes the fix must be new visible features
- ignores whether the real issue is demo optics, activation, trust, or differentiation

## What `pm-workbench` should do better

- separate the vague demand from the actual product problem
- identify the possible meanings behind “wow factor”
- ask only the 1-2 questions that change the framing most
- convert the ask into a clearer product question
- give a next move that protects the team from random solutioning

## Example response shape

- recommendation: the request is still too vague for a build decision
- possible meanings: demo impressiveness, activation, perceived intelligence, differentiated workflow value
- critical clarifications: where are we losing, and what exactly looks stronger in competitors
- reframed question: what product gap is making us feel less compelling in the moments that matter most
- next step: run a clarification pass before solution generation

## Suggested output shape

**Request Clarification Brief**

## Why this is valuable in real PM work

The real win here is not “better wording.”
It is stopping the team from turning executive ambiguity into a feature roadmap too early.
