How to Pick Your Next Expansion Path in 30 Minutes: A Fast Scoring Rubric

Most expansion debates are loud opinions in a meeting. You can do better with a 30-minute scorecard.

Thesis: A lightweight rubric forces clarity on customer, advantage, and cost—before you commit a quarter.

Step 1: List 3 candidates (not 20)

Pick three expansion candidates maximum. If you can’t narrow to three, you’re not ready to decide.

Step 2: Score on 6 dimensions

Score each 1–5:

1. Pain intensity (how urgent/expensive is the problem?)
2. Frequency (how often does it occur?)
3. Unfair advantage (data, workflow embedding, distribution, brand)
4. Build complexity (lower is better)
5. GTM fit (same buyer/channel?)
6. Strategic defensibility (does it strengthen moats?)

Then add a “risk note” for the biggest unknown.

Step 3: Force the wedge

For the top two, write the first shippable wedge in one sentence:

“For [ICP], when they [moment], we will [do X] so they can [outcome], measured by [metric].”

Step 4: Define kill criteria

Write two kill criteria:

• If we can’t reach X adoption in Y weeks, stop.
• If we can’t demonstrate WTP / ROI signal by Z, stop.

Common scoring mistakes

• Overweighting “strategic” and underweighting “GTM fit.”
• Underestimating support/implementation cost.
• Not separating core capability build from edge cases.

Key takeaways

• Limit to 3 candidates; force tradeoffs.
• Score on pain, frequency, advantage, build, GTM fit, and defensibility.
• Write the wedge as a single sentence before planning the roadmap.
• Kill criteria prevents zombie expansion bets.