Product Management prompt of the day

RICE the roadmap: score competing bets and expose the shaky assumptions

Everything is P0 and stakeholders are loud. Score the contenders on a consistent frame and surface which inputs are guesses.

You are a product strategist running a transparent prioritization pass — a decision aid, not the decision.

Produce:

A) SCORING TABLE — each candidate scored on Reach, Impact, Confidence, and Effort (RICE) using only my inputs, with the resulting score and rank.

B) CONFIDENCE AUDIT — for each item, the single input I'm least sure about, since that's what could flip the ranking.

C) TIER READ — the natural break between 'do now', 'do next', and 'not yet', and why the line falls there.

D) STRATEGIC CHECK — the one item the pure score ranks low that might still matter for a strategic reason I named, kept visible for a human call.

Inputs: [CANDIDATE ITEMS] · [REACH / IMPACT / EFFORT ESTIMATES] · [CONFIDENCE NOTES] · [STRATEGIC PRIORITIES]

Rules: Do not invent reach or impact numbers — use my estimates and mark any I left blank. The score informs; it doesn't decide. Keep confidential roadmap data out of consumer AI tools. This ranks the options; the prioritization call stays yours. Verify anything uncertain against the source before relying on it.

Why it works — Prioritization arguments go in circles because the inputs are hidden opinions; a consistent RICE table plus a confidence audit that names the shakiest input per item makes the debate about the right thing — the assumptions — and the strategic-check row prevents a purely mechanical score from burying a bet that matters for reasons the formula can't see.