OpenAI’s Product Lead Reveals the 4D Method for Building AI Products That Last
A deep playbook on Discovery, Design, Development, and Deployment. Showing how to avoid the hidden traps, manage drift, and build AI products that can survive decades!
When product leaders/founders talk about building, they usually reach for the same familiar playbooks that worked in SaaS and consumer software.
You validate a problem, design an interface, build the feature, and ship it to customers. The risks were relatively stable: will people use it, will it scale, will the business model hold?
But in AI, those rules break down. The problem you validate today may evaporate tomorrow when foundation models leap forward. Interfaces aren’t just about usability, they set user expectations about whether the AI is reliable or risky. Development doesn’t end at launch, because drift, cost spikes, and model behavior shifts can undo your product overnight. And deployment isn’t just about releasing a feature; it’s about building defensibility in a world where your competitors have access to the same models and APIs.
That’s why building AI products requires a different approach. You can’t rely on the same linear steps that worked for SaaS. You need a way to continuously uncover truth, design for trust, engineer for drift, and deploy with moats.
We call this the 4D Method: Discovery, Design, Develop, and Deploy - a framework reimagined for the realities of AI products. Over the years, I’ve seen teams fail because they treated AI like another software feature, and I’ve seen others succeed by embedding these four disciplines into everything they build.
Today, we’re going to walk you through it with examples, frameworks, and actionable steps you can take right away.
1. Discovery → Truth Hunting, Not Just Market Fit
Why AI Discovery Is Fundamentally Different
In classical product management, discovery was often seen as the art of listening to customers, running interviews, validating assumptions with a landing page, and then collecting early willingness-to-pay signals.
In AI, this is not enough. The surface problem that users describe may be real today but vanish tomorrow when foundation models expand capabilities, meaning your product might ship just as the problem space disappears.
For example, if in 2020 you discovered “users want help fixing grammar errors in emails,” you could have built a business around that pain point, but by 2023, GPT-4 and Grammarly had already commoditized grammar correction to the point where it became a free checkbox feature.
Discovery in AI is therefore not a single snapshot moment, but a process of truth hunting across shifting landscapes. You are not just asking “what problem do you have today?” but “which of your problems will persist even as AI models evolve and competitors race in?”
Framework: The Discovery Debt Log
Most teams track product backlog items, but very few track the assumptions that sit underneath their strategy. The Discovery Debt Log is designed to expose, document, and revisit every risky assumption that your product is standing on.
How to Use It Step-by-Step:
Hypothesis Capture → Write down the actual claim you’re betting on. For example: “Legal teams will pay $200 per seat for AI-powered contract review.”
Evidence Strength Rating → Mark whether this claim rests on anecdotal interview feedback (weak), a pilot with paying users (medium), or ongoing retention data (strong).
Validation Method → Note how this was validated. Was it interviews, shadowing, survey responses, real usage logs, or revenue data?
Risk If Wrong → Estimate whether this is a low-impact bet (wrong means you wasted a week) or an existential bet (wrong means your startup dies).
Owner Assignment → Assign someone on the team who is responsible for re-validating this assumption periodically.
Recheck Date → Because assumptions decay, every item in the log must have a date for when you will re-interrogate it.
If you never maintain a Discovery Debt Log, you end up making a series of silent bets that compound into collapse. For instance, Babylon Health assumed that regulators would see their AI doctor as equivalent to a human GP; they never revisited this assumption until it was too late.
The 3-Lens Discovery Test
Whenever you think you have found a viable problem worth solving with AI, run it through three distinct lenses.
Durability Lens → Ask: will this problem still exist after the next 2–3 foundation model upgrades? For example, building an “AI text summarizer” was a good idea in 2021, but by 2023, summarization was trivial inside ChatGPT. Durable problems are less about outputs (summaries, translations, captions) and more about workflows, integrations, and context (e.g., “helping doctors make billing decisions in compliance with insurance rules”).
Data Lens → Ask: can we secure exclusive or defensible data pipelines over time? The answer should not be “we’ll scrape the web” or “we’ll buy the same dataset as everyone else.” Instead, you need a strategy like Duolingo’s: their moat isn’t translation quality but the massive base of learner interactions and corrections, which serve as proprietary training data.
Trust Lens → Ask: who controls the veto power on trust? Sometimes it’s not the end-user but a regulator, a compliance officer, or even the CFO signing off on budget. A discovery process that ignores the veto holder is doomed.
Scoring Method: Rate each lens from 1–5. If your problem scores below 3.5 on average, it is not a problem you should bet a company on.
The Five Uncomfortable Questions
Before committing to any AI product or feature, sit down with your founding team and answer these questions honestly:
What if the problem disappears in 12 months because of model commoditization?
Who actually owns the data, and could they revoke access?
Would regulators, insurers, or risk officers feel embarrassed if our product failed publicly?
Can a competitor replicate this product with the same API in under six weeks?
If we succeed at scale, what is the first way trust breaks?
If you cannot answer all five, you are still in the fog of hype, not discovery.
Side Note: Miqdad is also leading the upcoming #1 AI PM Certification with Product Faculty: a 6-week live program designed to teach you how to build AI products that can’t be cloned in 3 months, or even 3 years.
Over 3,000 AI PMs have graduated from the program, it holds 600+ reviews (the highest of any program on Maven), and dozens of alumni have already landed AI-adjacent leadership roles.
What makes this cohort special?
AI Build Labs → hands-on workshops where you’ll use major AI tools to actually build products and workflows.
CPO Live Case Studies → real-world insights from world-class product leaders at companies like Atlassian and others.
Re-built Curriculum → upgraded lessons shaped by direct feedback from 3000+ students.
Enrollment closes soon for the October 18th start.
You can explore the full curriculum, reviews, and enroll here with $500 off: Click here to enroll.
2. Design: System Architecture for Trust
Why AI Design Is More Than UX
When people think of “design” they often imagine interfaces, typography, or pixel-perfect mockups. In AI products, design extends far deeper.
It is the architecture of how the system behaves under stress, drift, and abuse. A user interface can be beautiful, but if the AI produces unsafe outputs, consumes tokens unpredictably, or sets false expectations about reliability, no amount of color gradients will save it.
The true job of AI design is to engineer for trust: trust that the system will stay within safe bounds, trust that costs will not spiral, and trust that the AI will not fail in ways that surprise or harm the user.
A simple FTCEM framework to remember:
Failure Mode → Identify specific catastrophic failures (e.g., hallucinating legal advice, producing harmful images, running a million API calls unexpectedly).
Trigger → Document what causes this failure (malicious prompts, ambiguous instructions, dataset bias).
Consequence → List the downstream damage (loss of user trust, legal liability, infrastructure collapse).
Early Warning Signal → Define what telemetry or UX signal will alert you (e.g., spike in out-of-distribution inputs, rising support tickets).
Mitigation → Pre-define what you will do (shut down gracefully, escalate to human review, degrade functionality).
Run a workshop on this framework with product, design, engineering, and even legal/compliance together. Ask “imagine our product fails in the New York Times tomorrow, what headline would it be?” Then backtrack into failure modes.
The 3-Layer AI Design Pyramid
AI product design can be thought of as three nested layers.
1 - Interaction Design:
This is the visible layer: prompts, responses, chat interfaces, explanations. It is where users form mental models of “what this AI can do.”
Even tiny word choices matter: “generate” implies creativity, “recommend” implies authority, and “summarize” implies neutrality. Testing 50–100 verb variations is not overkill, because the semantics set expectations.
2 - Constraint Design:
This is the invisible layer: the filters, monitoring, escalation paths, and rule-based guardrails that keep the AI from going rogue. Think about whether your system should fail silently, block outputs, or escalate to human review when encountering edge cases.
A lack of constraints is what doomed Microsoft’s Tay in 2016. It learned from users in real time with no constraints, resulting in toxic outputs within 24 hours.
3 - Expectation Design:
This is the meta-layer: the cues you give users before they even start using your product. Pricing communicates whether this is a premium co-pilot or a casual helper. Onboarding copy tells users how cautious or adventurous the system is.
Even your marketing shapes expectation: if you call it an “AI doctor,” people expect infallibility; if you call it a “symptom checker,” people tolerate uncertainty.
Example: Anthropic’s Constitutional AI
Anthropic didn’t just bolt on content filters to their model after launch. They embedded a set of principles (“the constitution”) into the model training itself, making alignment a design decision, not a patch.
This is constraint design at the deepest level: rather than hoping to catch every toxic output post-hoc, they designed a system where outputs are filtered through constitutional principles by default.
3. Develop → Engineering for Drift, Not Just Features
Why AI Development Never Ends
In traditional product development, the finish line was often clear: you scoped a feature, you built it, you QA’d it, you shipped it, and you moved on.
In AI, there is no finish line, because the environment your system lives in is constantly shifting. Inputs change, foundation models evolve, costs fluctuate with scale, and user behavior stretches your system into unexpected territories.
You are not “shipping features”; you are engineering resilience against drift…
The slow, invisible slide of a product away from its intended reliability.
The Drift Management Loop
Every AI team should formalize a continuous loop of drift management. This loop has three core elements:
Model Drift → When the distribution of inputs shifts away from your training data, your AI produces less reliable results. For example, a medical AI trained on Western hospitals may drift when deployed in Asia due to different population health profiles.
How to Manage It:
Maintain a golden dataset of representative cases and run regression tests against it with every model update.
Track “out-of-distribution” alerts whenever your product encounters inputs it was not trained on.
Partner with domain experts to periodically re-label and validate outputs.
Cost Drift → Infrastructure costs rarely stay constant. An AI system that seemed efficient at 100k queries can become financially unsustainable at 10M queries. Costs also drift due to model API price changes or suboptimal prompt/token usage.
How to Manage It:
Monitor cost per successful outcome, not just cost per API call.
Set thresholds for alerting when per-user costs rise above a defensible margin.
Continuously optimize prompts, context windows, and caching strategies.
Behavior Drift → Even if your model is technically “accurate,” its behavior may subtly shift, causing user trust to erode. For example, an AI support agent that once answered politely but now occasionally snaps with terse replies creates reputational risk.
How to Manage It:
Implement UX regression testing, where the same input is run monthly to check if tone or style has shifted.
Collect user trust signals (NPS, satisfaction variance, support ticket analysis).
Design escalation paths for when users flag unexpected behaviors.
Each sprint should end with a Drift Review, where the team checks model performance, infra costs, and behavior stability, not just feature completion.
The Drift Triangle
Drift management is a balancing act between three competing forces:
Performance → accuracy, relevance, quality of outputs.
Cost → infra, API, token, and retraining expenses.
Trust → user satisfaction, safety, reliability.
Optimizing one corner often stresses the others. For example, maximizing performance by adding longer context windows increases cost dramatically; reducing costs by compressing prompts may lower trust if outputs become unreliable. The PM’s role is not to maximize a single corner but to constantly rebalance the triangle as conditions shift.
Case Study: Tesla Autopilot & Shadow Mode
Tesla rarely releases features “cold.” Instead, they deploy them in shadow mode: running silently in the background while humans still control the car. This allows Tesla to collect data, monitor drift, and recalibrate without public trust collapse.
AI builderss should adopt the same principle: deploy features in “monitor only” mode before exposing them to users. For example, a fraud detection AI can silently flag cases for review before making automated decisions.
Even let me give you another example: Perplexity AI
Perplexity differentiates itself not just by UI but by embedding evaluation pipelines into daily development. Every new model release is benchmarked against golden Q&A datasets.
This means they don’t wake up to sudden trust collapse; they see drift before users do. Their development rhythm proves that evaluation pipelines are not “nice-to-have QA,” they are core product infrastructure.
The Drift Playbook
Create a Golden Dataset → 200–500 examples that represent mission-critical inputs.
Set Cost Thresholds → Decide the maximum cost per user or per successful outcome.
Design Behavior Monitors → Track tone, consistency, and alignment via regular audits.
Run Drift Reviews → End every sprint with a review of drift metrics alongside velocity metrics.
Document Drift Events → Maintain a drift log similar to an incident log, so you learn compounding lessons.
4. Deploy → Defending the Moat, Not Just Launching
Why Deployment Is Misunderstood
Most teams think deployment is synonymous with “launch.” They plan a press cycle, put the product live, and celebrate. In AI, deployment is the exact opposite of an ending; it is the beginning of your survival test.
The day after you launch, competitors will attempt to replicate your idea, regulators may start scrutinizing your outputs, and users will inevitably push the system into edge cases you never predicted. Deployment is not the party after building; it is the war for defensibility.
The Day 2 Checklist
To survive past the hype cycle of launch, you need to operate against a Day 2 Checklist.
Monitoring Dashboards Live → You should be watching usage, drift, costs, and error rates in real time. If you launch without monitoring, you are flying blind.
Compliance Reporting Automated → For regulated industries, reporting pipelines should be live from Day 2, not bolted on later.
Retraining Cadence Defined → You should have a schedule (weekly, monthly) for retraining or updating models, not wait until trust collapses.
Feedback Routing → Every ticket, complaint, or flagged output should be captured and routed back into the evaluation dataset.
Billing & Infra Alerts → You should have alerts for runaway costs or token spikes. Many AI startups fail because of infra bills, not because of churn.
Rollback Protocols Rehearsed → You should know how to roll back to a safe state within hours if a catastrophic bug appears.
If you can’t answer “what happens on Day 2 if X breaks?”
You weren’t ready for Day 0.
The Three Moats of Deployment
Distribution Moat → Where you launch matters more than what you launch. Products that embed into workflows (e.g., Slack plugins, Figma integrations) defend themselves better than standalone apps. Runway’s embedding into creative workflows is what gave it staying power.
Trust Moat → Users will forgive early mistakes if they trust your process. Building in safeguards, transparent explanations, and human escalation creates a moat competitors can’t easily copy. Zoom’s real moat wasn’t video quality, it was reliability and the perception of trust.
Adaptation Moat → The only certainty in AI is change. The companies that survive are those that retrain, iterate, and ship faster than competitors. Stripe is the archetype: its ability to continuously adapt infra and release features faster created a moat bigger than just payments.
Zoom vs. Clubhouse
Zoom scaled not because it had AI magic but because it mastered deployment moats: reliability, global distribution, and enterprise trust. Clubhouse, on the other hand, had viral launch buzz but no Day 2 plan: no trust moat, no adaptation speed, and no distribution moat beyond social hype. It fizzled as quickly as it rose.
Runway
Runway understood that launching a standalone “AI video app” wasn’t defensible. Instead, they embedded themselves early into creative workflows and built distribution moats through partnerships with creators. Their deployment success shows that launching is not about novelty but about embedding.
 | A guest post by
|