I Put Name, Frame, Extend Through AI Analysis—Here's What I Learned
- Erin Daniels
- Sep 27
- 4 min read
Last week, I decided to run Name, Frame, Extend through AI Cofounder—a tool that helps people stress-test their ideas through structured analysis. What started as a simple validation exercise turned into a lesson in how much clarity I could still gain about my own work.
When you've been working on something for a while, you think you know it inside and out. You can explain it to anyone, you understand the problem it solves, and you're confident about its value. Or so you think.
Last week, I decided to run Name, Frame, Extend through AI Cofounder—a tool that helps entrepreneurs stress-test their ideas through structured analysis. What started as a simple validation exercise turned into a lesson in how much clarity I could still gain about my own work.
Here's what happened when I let AI interrogate my framework.
The Problem Statement Wrestling Match
AI Cofounder's first move? Force me to articulate exactly what problem NFE solves. Easy, right?
My first attempt: "It's a career resilience framework."
AI: "So you're addressing professionals who struggle to build resilience and navigate workplace challenges?"
Me: "Well, not exactly workplace challenges. It's more about keeping your skill set documented and transferable."
AI: "Ah, so it's about maintaining and organizing skills in a transferable format?"
Me: "Not maintaining... more like documenting and communicating."
AI: "So the format is transferable?"
Me: "No, the skills themselves are transferable."
This back-and-forth continued for several rounds. What I thought was a crystal-clear concept—helping people build career resilience—actually needed significant refinement.
The final problem statement we landed on: "Professionals lack a structured, efficient method to document and communicate their transferable skills."
Suddenly, NFE felt much more focused. Not career resilience in general. Not workplace navigation. Specifically: the challenge of making your capabilities visible and portable.
The Positioning Breakthrough
The AI's next insight was even more valuable. It started categorizing NFE alongside career coaching and intensive career development programs. I pushed back: "I want this to be distinct from career coaching. It's more about an efficient, sustainable practice than coaching or other intensive strategies." That's when the AI had its "aha moment"—and so did I.
AI: "Your framework fills a gap between doing nothing and investing in formal career coaching. It's like the difference between a daily fitness routine versus hiring a personal trainer."
This positioning suddenly made everything clearer. NFE isn't competing with career coaches or comprehensive development programs. It's the lightweight, self-directed practice that people can maintain consistently without external help or major time investment.
More accessible than coaching. More systematic than ad-hoc efforts. More sustainable than intensive programs.
The Validation That Actually Mattered
Then came the research phase. The AI scoured Reddit, professional forums, and career resources looking for evidence that people actually struggle with this problem. What it found was both validating and interesting:
Direct quotes from professionals:
"I know I have a lot of transferable skills, but I'm struggling to get past the initial screening"
"I'm not sure I'm framing my experience the right way"
"I've adapted my CV accordingly... but I have not yet been successful in securing a role"
Recognition from career professionals:
MIT's Career Development Office identified "identifying your transferable skills" as "often the most challenging aspect of resume preparation for career changers."
A career coach noted: "Most people have really marketable soft skills that are very useful in different business roles, but most of the time they don't see it themselves."
This wasn't just my theory about what people need. This was documented evidence of people actively struggling with exactly what NFE addresses.
What This Exercise Taught Me
1. You Can Be Too Close to Your Own Work
I thought I had pretty good clarity about NFE. The AI's persistent questioning revealed I was actually fuzzy on some fundamental aspects. Sometimes you need an external perspective—even an artificial one—to see what you're really building.
2. Positioning Is Everything
The insight about NFE as a "daily practice" rather than a "program" fundamentally changed how I think about its role in people's lives. It's not a one-time solution—it's an ongoing capability-building habit. Although I settled on weekly, not daily.
3. Validation Needs to Be Specific
Generic career development problems weren't enough. The AI forced me to find evidence of people specifically struggling with skills documentation and communication. That specificity makes the validation much stronger.
The Bigger Lesson
The most valuable part of this exercise wasn't the AI's analysis—it was the discipline of having to defend and refine every assumption about my own work.
When you create something, you develop blind spots. You know what you mean, so you assume others will too. You understand the context, so you don't always articulate it clearly.
Subjecting NFE to systematic questioning helped me see it more clearly. Not because the AI was smarter than me, but because it didn't share my assumptions.
What's Next
This was just the "Discover Idea" phase of AI Cofounder's process. The experience was valuable enough that I'm planning to take NFE through the remaining phases— including market research, competition analysis, and audience research.
Each phase will probably surface new insights I haven't considered. I'm looking forward to being surprised by my own framework again. Because the goal isn't to prove I had everything figured out from the beginning. It's to build something that actually helps people solve a real problem.
And sometimes that means discovering you don't understand your own work as well as you thought you did.