A co-founder trial often begins with a friendly agreement to “build something together.” The ambiguity appears later. One person expected research, the other expected a working application. One assumed evenings, the other expected immediate availability. Nobody agreed what would happen to the work if they stopped.
The Co-Founder Trial Brief is a compact operating document for preventing that confusion. It gives both participants a shared question, scope, responsibilities and review process.
This is an original Foundshore template. It is not a legal agreement, a compatibility score or evidence that a pair should form a company. Before productive work begins, address compensation, intellectual property, confidentiality, existing obligations and other legal matters through appropriate professional review.
What the brief is designed to do
The brief should make the trial interpretable. At the end, both people should be able to explain what they attempted, what they observed and what the evidence does—or does not—support.
It should also make the trial bounded. A defined duration, effort expectation and stopping process prevent a small experiment from drifting into an indefinite arrangement.
Do not use the form to hide uncertainty under completed fields. “Unknown; requires discussion before starting” is a valid entry. The interactive version keeps prerequisite status separate from the richness of the written answers.
The fields and their purpose
Section | What to write |
|---|---|
Participants and dates | Names, a start and review date, and the working time expected |
Shared question | The most important uncertainty the collaboration should examine |
Work and acceptance | The artifact or research result, its limits and how it will be reviewed |
Responsibilities | What each person leads and which decisions are shared |
Operating conditions | Communication, decision handling, resources and spending approval |
Boundaries | Permitted data and systems, prerequisites and stopping arrangements |
Evidence and review | What will be observed, where it is recorded and the next decision |
The blank Markdown version can be copied into a document. The browser version supports direct editing and JSON export. Both use the same fields so the information remains portable.
Write the question before the deliverable
A deliverable can be completed without answering the relationship question. Two people might build an attractive prototype while avoiding every important disagreement.
Start with a question such as: “Can we jointly investigate a customer workflow, choose a narrow problem and deliver a limited test under the time we can realistically commit?” Then select the work that can generate relevant observations.
Avoid using the brief to evaluate only one participant. Both people should state what they will contribute, what they need from the other and what they hope to learn about the partnership.
Define acceptance without promising market success
Acceptance describes whether the agreed work was completed and examined. It does not mean the company idea is validated or that customers will purchase.
For research, require notes, the scope of the sample, competing explanations and unanswered questions. For a prototype, require the agreed behavior, a demonstration of limits and an understandable handoff. For a technical investigation, specify the question and the evidence that will address it.
Do not make acceptance depend on a third party doing something nobody can control. A customer may decline an interview. An external service may be unavailable. Record how such a constraint affects interpretation and whether an alternative is appropriate.
A fictional completed example
Two prospective founders want to explore software for service businesses. They agree to investigate how a narrow group handles client handoffs, then build a limited demonstration using synthetic data. One leads workflow research; the other leads the prototype. Both review the evidence and decide the scope.
They reserve agreed evening working windows and a midpoint review. External contacts require permission, spending requires mutual approval and no production credentials are shared. Before starting, they confirm the appropriate arrangements for work ownership and compensation outside the worksheet.
Their final artifact is not “a successful startup.” It is a documented workflow, a small demonstration and a joint decision about whether further collaboration is worthwhile. If access to interview participants fails, that fact remains part of the record.
The sample supplied with the template is fictional and labeled accordingly. Replace the facts; do not treat its duration, workload or number of conversations as a benchmark.
Use prerequisite states honestly
The interactive brief has a boundary-review status: unresolved, confirmed for this trial, or blocked. It reports whether the working document is ready for a human review, not whether it creates a valid agreement or makes the activity safe.
A blocked prerequisite should stop the relevant work even when the rest of the document is complete. A high-quality task description does not cancel an unresolved ownership issue or lack of permission to use data.
After a material change in scope, revisit the prerequisites. Adding real customer information or a new paid deliverable can change the conditions under which the original trial was appropriate.
Keep observations separate from evaluations
During the trial, record specific events: a decision, a changed estimate, a handoff, a disagreement and how it was resolved. Avoid using the shared document as a running list of personal judgments.
At the final review, each person should first write an independent assessment. Then compare interpretations. A missed milestone may reflect an unsuitable scope, an external dependency, an execution problem or different expectations. The conversation should distinguish those possibilities.
The companion two-week trial guide explains how to structure that review. The template exists to retain the evidence and decisions, not prescribe the same schedule for every pair.
Choose a clear next state
The final field offers continue, extend for a specific question, stop, or undecided pending a named prerequisite. An extension should identify what additional information it will produce and when the next review occurs.
When continuing, move into the appropriate company and working arrangements rather than letting an informal trial silently become a permanent commitment. When stopping, complete the agreed handoff, access removal and any outstanding obligations.
Keep a version of the completed record that both participants can access under their agreement. Limit access to sensitive information and decide how long it should be retained.
Practical use and privacy
The supplied HTML tool runs in the browser without an account and does not send form contents to Foundshore. It does not automatically save entries. Export a JSON copy before closing or refreshing the page; store that file only where the participants intend it to be shared.
Import accepts the matching template format. Review imported information before relying on it, and avoid entering credentials, customer secrets or unnecessary personal details. Printing is provided as a browser action, with a compact reading view of the fields.
The template is useful when it makes a conversation more precise. It is not useful when it becomes paperwork that neither participant reads. Fill it together, test the right question and leave with a decision grounded in the work you actually did.
Method note
This is an original Foundshore editorial framework. Scenarios and completed samples are illustrative rather than reported customer outcomes. The suggested process is not a validated performance benchmark.
