Decision index / 06 lanes
Start with the task behind the pageview. Read what was tested, see what remains unknown, and choose a next step small enough to verify.
Useful Mint is building a broader evidence-led library for people shipping and monetizing software. This first hub is deliberately read-only: it routes you to maintained guides, a free checklist, and an explicit evidence boundary.
Choose a lane
Six lanes keep the library broad enough for real product work while retaining one shared chain: choose, launch, find, convert, get paid, and decide what deserves another bet. “Evidence gap” is a visible status, not a promise that a guide is coming.
Can you keep control of the product after the first build?
Check source, repository workflow, runtime dependencies, and the handoff proof before a builder becomes a permanent constraint.
Run the ownership checklistWhat needs to be recoverable before real users arrive?
Separate a working demo from durable authentication, data, webhooks, deployment, and rollback evidence.
Read the failure analysisWhich search or distribution path deserves the next test?
Start with a named buyer, a measurable action, and evidence that distinguishes exposure from a useful visit.
Run the search leak checkWhy does attention stop before a qualified action?
The dedicated conversion probe is not published yet. Use the existing method and service scope to name the next measurable handoff.
Read the evaluation methodWhat must be true before a commercial ask is made?
Keep scope, price, payment terms, and evidence boundaries explicit; a click or quote is not a collected payment.
Review the dated cost ledgerWhich repeated problem deserves another investment?
Use a short, inspectable loop: evidence, a small next step, repeated problem signals, and only then a paid manual path.
Read how evidence is maintainedCurrent evidence
These routes are the current library, not a universal ranking. Each one names the observation, the boundary, and the next proof to collect.
Six controlled checks cover repository access, a reproducible build, independent deployment, data recovery, and ongoing synchronization.
Run the checklistChoose Bolt, Replit, v0, or Webflow by the constraint you need to remove, with repository, build, auth, and data boundaries kept explicit.
Compare the constraintsFour private repository states show why ownership, complete commits, branch isolation, and reverse sync are separate proofs.
Inspect the workflowFour clean checkouts show why generated state, locked dependencies, a passing build, and a rendered start path are separate receipts.
Read the handoff proofFour reproduced cases show why a working demo does not prove a clean handoff, secure authentication, durable data, or independent operation.
Read the failure casesFour controlled questions separate search exposure, useful visits, qualified action, and collected payment without asking for a domain or analytics credentials.
Run the leak checkOne Free-plan response used 2.50 Build credits; plan, Run-cost, top-up, and production boundaries remain separate.
Open the cost ledgerChoose between a prompt-first application workflow and a visual website system, with CMS, GitHub, hosting, and handoff kept separate.
Choose the workflowThe hub stores no account, project URL, email, budget, or free-form response. Reader polls and the search diagnostic use only controlled choices, with no account required.
Evidence gaps are kept visible so a missing page is not mistaken for demand, a buyer, or a verified willingness-to-pay signal.
Next step
Use the free ownership checklist for a concrete handoff question, or read the methodology before you treat a result as a conclusion.
