Building an app to enhance self-regulation. Do these 3 assumptions kill my product?

Quantified Self Apps & Tools
, ,
1

Hi everyone,

I’m working on a self-improvement app for improving grit, discipline, motivation and more. I’m looking for critical feedback here, specifically regarding the behavioral assumptions I’m making.

None of this tackles “abnormal” psychology like clinical disorders - it’s more for performance enhancement.

The Context: Traits like grit and discipline correlate with success, but executing the necessary behaviors to “grow” these incurs a high tax on cognitive load and willpower. For example, pushing through failure with sheer grit & willpower requires draining executive function to override the brain’s natural desire to stop, leading to increased cognitive load and willpower depletion.

My app reduces this friction by acting as an external “executive function” coach/therapist in your pocket with AI - telling you what to do at inflection points throughout the day. It works by:

  1. Ingesting your thoughts, emotions, and daily events via voice notes. Obviously a prereq is that the user must be a generally “mindful” person to notice these things.

  2. Daily priming: Outputting specific Implementation Intentions (e.g., “If X happens, then I will do Y”) based on your specific weaknesses and recurrent failures.

  3. Real-time Intervention: When a known “trigger” event happens (e.g., I encounter a setback), the app reminds you of: the cost of not executing the relevant intervention (e.g. Deep Breathing) and the benefit of performing the intervention, based on your history of performing interventions & their success rates.

  4. Prescribes the best interventions: based on trial and error. An intervention I’ve found most valuable when I lose motivation to work after encountering a setback is to start work is to “just work for 5 mins, if you’re not motivated after that you can stop” (I always end up working well past 5 mins).

The Request: I’ve identified 3 major “Risky Assumptions” that could kill this product. I’ve also listed my “counters” (why I think it might still work).

I need to know: Do these assumptions invalidate the idea? And what other risks am I overlooking?

Risk 1: The Clarity & Diagnosis Issue

  • The Assumption: Users can accurately diagnose their own issues (e.g., lack of grit vs. burnout) and select the right starting “intervention/tool set” to iterate on.

  • The Fear: If users can’t self-diagnose, the interventions will be misplaced.

  • My Counter: I plan to help identify common anomalies that would indicate traditional tools may not work for a given subject based on comprehensive questionnaires (for burnout vs grit - I might ask “How refreshed are you?” to identify whether burnout is an issue). Assessment can be self-reviewed and eventually be reviewed by a human psychologist for soundness.

  • If the user and their conditions seem normal, the app starts by prescribing the most effective/common tools for a given domain. While such a generalized approach won’t make any “superhumans”, I’m hoping it’ll significantly move the needle for folks.

Risk 2: The Compliance & Willpower Issue

  • The Assumption: Users will listen to the app in real-time.

  • The Fear: When a user is “vulnerable” (e.g., just received bad news), they may simply lack the willpower to execute the intervention, even if the app reminds them.

  • My Counter: The goal isn’t 100% compliance. If the app makes a user more likely to make the right decision than they would have been without it, it provides value.

Risk 3: The “Reliable Narrator” Problem (Garbage In / Garbage Out)

  • The Assumption: The data the user puts in is accurate enough to yield good outputs.

  • The Fear: Since the app doesn’t have access to actual thoughts (only what is dictated), efficacy depends on the user’s mindfulness and self-awareness.

  • My Counter: This is a scaling problem. While the general population might struggle, those who are “mindfulness” may benefit the most.

Questions for you:

  1. Do any of these risks seem insurmountable despite my counters?

  2. Are there other “silent killers” in this workflow that I’m missing?

Thanks for the help!

1 Like
2

Overall, this is a very thoughtful and well-structured concept, and it’s clear that you’re engaging seriously with real behavioral friction rather than just building another surface-level productivity tool. I congratulate you on that!

I think none of the three risks you outlined seem to invalidate the idea on their own, but the first one (misdiagnosis) does feel like the most structurally sensitive. People don’t just misidentify their own challenges, they often become attached to those interpretations. Burnout versus “lack of discipline” is especially delicate, because applying grit-based tools to the wrong condition can backfire. This is why it may be important for the system to rely less on early labels and more on observable behavioral patterns over time, allowing insights to emerge gradually and gently challenge the user’s own assumptions.

On the compliance side, the issue may not be willpower itself but how the app is perceived psychologically. If several well-timed interventions are ignored in a row, the app risks being reclassified in the user’s mind as optional advice rather than meaningful support. Your point that even partial compliance still creates value makes sense, but long-term retention will likely depend on how adaptive and non-judgmental small the interventions feel in moments of vulnerability.

The “reliable narrator” problem also feels real, but more as a natural market filter than a fundamental blocker. This kind of product will likely resonate first with people who already have a reflective relationship with their inner states. The subtler risk isn’t intentional inaccuracy, but emotional reinterpretation of events over time. Without surfacing contradictions and recurring patterns, the system could unintentionally reinforce distorted narratives rather than clarify them.

Beyond these three, a few quieter risks stand out, I believe. One is identity reactance. If users begin to feel “corrected” rather than supported, they may disengage emotionally. Another is the precision of emotional timing. The effectiveness of real-time interventions depends on arriving at just the right moment. There is also a longer-term risk of over-reliance, where the system could unintentionally weaken the user’s own regulatory capacity unless there is a clear path back toward autonomy. Finally, without visible long-term cause-and-effect feedback, users may credit themselves for successes while attributing failures to the app, which can slowly erode trust.

I think the core idea feels strong and what you’re building seems to go beyond a typical self-improvement app toward something closer to a temporary cognitive support system. It seems like its long term success will likely depend on whether users experience it as strengthening their inner agency rather than replacing it. Good luck!