I am currently creating a new product and effectively thinking out loud
I wanted to document a deliberate choice I’ve made about how the product is being built, and just as importantly, how it is not being built.
This post explains the decision itself. The outcomes and consequences will follow in later posts, as they usually do.
The decision
I am building this product as a finite, judgment-led asset.
That means it is designed to be complete. Its value comes from editorial judgment, selection, and restraint, not from scale, exhaustiveness, or continuous expansion.
I am not aiming to create a system that grows indefinitely or updates by default. I am creating a finished object that reflects clear decisions.
Why I’m choosing this approach
Authority over accumulation
Authority doesn’t come from including everything. It comes from deciding what matters and being willing to leave the rest out.
A finite asset makes that visible. It shows that I’ve made choices, and that I’m prepared to stand behind them.
Trust through completion
When something is finished, people can understand it fully. They can assess it, use it, and own it with confidence.
Perpetually expanding products blur their own intent. Completion, by contrast, creates trust.
Signal strength
A bounded asset sends a clear signal: this is intentional work, not a feed, not a funnel, and not a growth experiment.
It avoids the drift and incentive misalignment that often appear once “keeping it updated” becomes the primary goal.
Longevity
Judgment-led assets tend to age better than algorithm-led systems.
They can become reference points rather than streams, something you return to, not something that constantly demands attention.
What this is not
This is intentionally:
- Not a content feed
- Not a marketplace
- Not a continuously updated library
- Not optimised for engagement metrics, retention loops, or growth targets
These absences are choices, not constraints.
Design principles I’m holding myself to
These are binding unless I explicitly reopen the decision.
- Finite scope — There is a defined boundary and a clear moment of completion.
- Editorial judgment — Human judgment overrides algorithmic completeness.
- Stability over novelty — Updates are exceptional, not expected.
- Ownership mindset — This should feel like a complete object someone owns, not temporary access.
- Quiet confidence — No hype mechanics, urgency tactics, or artificial scarcity.
What this implies
For the product
There is no default roadmap for continuous expansion.
If anything is added later, it would require re-justifying the entire asset, not just bolting something on.
For pricing
This is a one-time purchase.
The price reflects completeness and judgment, not volume or ongoing delivery.
For messaging
I’ll talk about intent, finish, and decision-making, not future promises or planned growth.
Risks I’m accepting
I’m aware this choice comes with trade-offs:
- A smaller addressable audience
- Slower initial uptake
- Less appeal to buyers looking for constant updates
I’m comfortable with those costs in exchange for clarity and long-term value.
Closing
This post is about the decision itself.
What this enables, and what it rules out, will become clearer in subsequent posts as the work unfolds.
For now, this is simply me stating the ground I’m choosing to stand on.
