Early Validation Report
An investor-focused, transparent overview of our pilot testing phase. The claim that MENTIS is more practical, actionable, and relevant was measured to test directional effectiveness, not final psychometric precision.
Methodology
This report summarizes findings from a pilot study with 200+ students. The objective was to test the directional effectiveness of our integrated design (Assessment → Profile → Match → Roadmap) and de-risk our core product strategy.
- Pre/Post Self-Clarity Comparison: Users rated their career clarity on a 5-point Likert scale before and after using the tool.
- Comparative Perception Analysis: Users provided feedback on the relevance of MENTIS's report compared to generic psychometric tests they had taken previously.
- Observed Engagement Behavior: We analyzed usage data to identify which components of the report (e.g., skill gaps, roadmap) users engaged with most.
Key Findings
Increased Self-Clarity
+1.5–1.8
Average increase in self-clarity on a 5-point Likert scale, pre- vs. post-assessment.
Clearer Next Steps
~70%
Of users reported having clearer, more actionable next steps after receiving their report.
High Engagement on Roadmaps
Most Used Feature
Usage observation showed the highest engagement and time spent on the 90-day roadmap outputs.
Higher Perceived Relevance
More Relevant
In comparative feedback, users rated MENTIS more relevant than generic tests due to local context and actionability.
Evidence Matrix
| Dimension | Method | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Self-Clarity | Pre/Post Likert Scale Comparison | +1.5–1.8 average increase |
| Confidence in Next Steps | Post-use Survey (5-point scale) | ~70% reported higher confidence (4 or 5) |
| Actionability | Observed User Engagement | 90-Day Roadmap was the most used feature |
| Relevance | Comparative User Feedback | Rated higher than generic psychometric tests |
Qualitative Feedback & Actions Taken
Positive: The Need for Guidance is Real
The most consistent feedback was relief. Students expressed that having a structured path, even a preliminary one, was immensely helpful. It validated our core hypothesis that the absence of guidance is a significant pain point.
Constructive: Process Length & Report Framing
A key piece of constructive criticism was that the initial assessment felt too long. Additionally, some career paths in the report needed clearer, more direct framing. Users wanted to understand the 'so what' more quickly.
Iterative Improvement: MVP Focus
Based on this feedback, we have streamlined the MVP's core user flow to be shorter and more focused. The career report has been redesigned to present the most critical information—skill gaps and the 90-day plan—more prominently, ensuring users get to the actionable insights faster.
Conclusion & Investor Takeaway
The pilot successfully validated our core hypothesis: an integrated, locally-contextualized career guidance tool provides significantly more value than generic alternatives. The strong positive impact on student clarity and confidence provides a data-backed foundation for our product strategy.
Most importantly, the process demonstrated our team's ability to listen to the market, gather actionable intelligence, and translate feedback into a de-risked product roadmap. This iterative, evidence-based approach is central to our strategy as we move toward the MVP and commercialization.