Two people told me the same feature surprised them.

Two people told me the same feature surprised them. So I'm rebuilding it around that instead of guessing.

Quick update on FounderMind AI. Since the last launch thread, two separate people mentioned the same thing without prompting: the competitor-analysis lens surfaced something they hadn't actually found on their own — one person a niche competitor they'd missed, another said the pricing suggestions felt grounded in real market context rather than a generic template.

That's useful signal, because it wasn't the lens I expected to land. Business strategy and risk assessment felt like the "obvious value" lenses when I designed this. Competitor research was almost the utility player.

So right now I'm doing the opposite of adding a new feature — I'm going back into the competitor lens specifically and trying to figure out what made those two results feel sharp, so I can make that the default quality bar across all five lenses instead of the exception.

What I don't have a good answer for yet: how do you tell the difference between "this lens is genuinely good" and "I got two ideas where competitor research happened to matter more"? Two data points isn't a pattern, but it's more than I had before.

If you've used a multi-perspective tool like this — did one "expert" consistently outperform the others for you, and did you ever figure out why?