Failure Modes of the FAQs

Overview

The FAQ is a mechanism to bring truth to the surface early.

It works only when it is used to confront assumptions, execution risks, architecture, resources, and tradeoffs.

When used incorrectly, teams fall into predictable patterns that weaken the mechanism and allow flawed products to move forward.

This page outlines the most common failure modes, how to detect them, and how to correct them.

1.The FAQ Is Written Like a Sales Pitch

Symptoms

• Language is vague or aspirational
• Answers avoid specifics or risks
• Reads like marketing copy
• It is designed to "sell" ideas, not test them

Correction

• Rewrite in plain language
• Replace adjectives with facts
• Add specificity, metrics, and constraints
• Introduce uncomfortable questions

2.The Answers Are Too Short or Too Easy

Symptoms

• "Yes, we can."
• "This won't be a problem."
• "We haven't thought about that yet."
• Vague answers or one-liners

Correction

A good answer should include:

• The constraint
• The dependency
• The risk
• The unknown
• The mechanism

If answering the question is too easy, you are not thinking.

3.Hand-Waving Instead of Clarity

Symptoms

• "We will figure this out later."
• "The team will solve this."
• "This is not a big risk."

These answers signal that the product is not ready.

Correction

Ask:

• What exact mechanism solves this?
• Who owns it?
• What is the sequence?

Replace belief with evidence.

4.The FAQ Is Written by One Function Only

Symptoms

• All answers are product-centric
• Only engineering answers the technical questions
• Hardware or AI or GTM never touched it
• Missing go-to-market or support implications

Correction

A correct FAQ requires the full system:

• Product
• Software
• AI/ML
• Hardware
• Ops
• GTM / support

A single-function FAQ = a broken FAQ.

5.It Avoids the Real Risks

Symptoms

• No mention of dependencies or architectural debt
• Risks are sanitized or downplayed
• No mention of external blockers
• No constraints around data, hardware, or deployment

Correction

Ask explicitly:

• What's the worst thing that could happen?
• What is our failure mode?
• What would break this plan?
• What do we not want to admit?

The FAQ must include the uncomfortable truths.

6.It Has No Concrete Success Criteria

Symptoms

• No metrics, leading indicators, or constraints
• Success is a feeling, not measurable
• Milestones aren't quantified

Correction

Add:

• What does success look like at Day 1? Day 90?
• What leading metrics indicate progress?
• What lagging metrics validate value?

No metrics leads to no clarity.

7.The FAQ Repeats the PR

Symptoms

• Same language or paragraphs in both
• Talks only about customer benefit
• No execution detail

Correction

Remember:

• PR = customer success & value
• FAQ = how we make it real

If the FAQ is just a longer PR, the product is not ready.

8.The FAQ is Missing Ownership

Symptoms

• Lots of "we"
• Nobody assigned to workstreams
• No sequencing or dependency mapping

Correction

Add:

• Explicit ownership
• Sequence of execution
• "Who owns? Who decides? Who does?"

Mechanisms require named owners.

9.The FAQ Avoids the Tradeoffs

Symptoms

• Overly optimistic assumptions
• "We will do it all" mentality
• No prioritization or MVP concept
• No mention of what we are not doing

Correction

Force explicit tradeoffs:

• What is out of scope?
• What won't we build?
• What do we postpone?

If you can't name the "no," you aren't ready.

10.It Turns Into a Form, Not a Thinking Exercise

Symptoms

• People fill templates without deep thought
• Answers are generic and templated
• Meetings focus on formatting, not clarity

Correction

Reinforce the real purpose:

• The FAQ is a mechanism for truth, not a deliverable.
• If it doesn't make the team uncomfortable, it's not real Working Backwards.

11.Teams Jump to Solutions

Symptoms

• Feature lists appear prematurely
• Technology is proposed before the problem is nailed
• Implementation details overshadow value

Correction

Remind teams:

• Design comes after clarity, not before.

12.The FAQ Isn't Tested Against Reality

Symptoms

• No challenge by engineering or hardware leads
• Architecture is assumed ready
• Risks are unstated
• Data or platform constraints ignored

Correction

Ask:

• What would break this in the real world?
• What must be true for this to work?
• How do we validate assumption X?

How to Use This Page

During Working Backwards reviews:

• Print these failure modes
• Evaluate your FAQ against them
• Ask reviewers to call out which are present
• Treat every failure mode as a design flaw in the idea

The goal is not perfection.
The goal is clarity.