---
title: "Build Risk Review: Storevine bulk price-update tool"
description: "Feature-change build risk review for a native bulk price-update tool on a B2B catalog platform where merchants edit prices in spreadsheets and re-upload."
artifact: build-risk-review
version: "1.0"
repo_version: "2.29.0"
skill_version: "1.0.0"
created: 2026-06-22
status: sample
thread: storevine
context: Storevine B2B ecommerce catalog platform - whether to build a native bulk price-update tool requested by mid-market merchants
---
<!-- PM-Skills | https://github.com/product-on-purpose/pm-skills | Apache 2.0 -->

## Scenario

Storevine is a B2B catalog platform `[fictional]`. Mid-market merchants manage 500 to 5,000 SKUs and re-price seasonally. Support logged 40-plus tickets this quarter from merchants who export the catalog to a spreadsheet, edit prices, and re-upload, and three accounts called the manual round-trip "the most painful part of the month" in renewal calls. `[fictional]`

## Prompt

"Run a build risk review on a native bulk price-update tool before I scope the sprint."

## Output

# Build Risk Review: native bulk price-update tool

**Mode:** Feature-change  |  **Date:** 2026-06-22

## Verdict

**Build small.** This is a real workflow blocker on the core catalog job, with repeated, behavior-backed demand and direct retention exposure. A narrow first version is justified; the risk is over-building, not whether to build.

## Biggest risk

- **R1 `feature-fit`:** the trap is shipping a heavy pricing-rules engine when the actual job is "edit many prices at once without the export and re-upload round-trip." Scope creep here turns a one-sprint win into a quarter.
- R2 `trust`: bulk edits are destructive; one mistake re-prices thousands of live SKUs, so even the small version needs a preview diff and undo or it erodes trust.
- R3 `retention`: if the first version is slower than the spreadsheet workaround, merchants keep the workaround and the build does not move the renewal risk it was meant to fix.

## Demand level

**L4 - retention blocker.** Three paying accounts named it in renewal calls `[fictional]`, 40-plus tickets this quarter `[fictional]`, and it sits on the core catalog job that merchants complete today only via a painful workaround they actively maintain.

## Evidence ledger

| Signal | Strength | What it proves |
|---|---|---|
| 40-plus support tickets this quarter `[fictional]` | strong | a maintained manual workaround is real, repeated pain |
| 3 accounts cite it in renewal calls `[fictional]` | strong | retention exposure, named by paying customers |
| "most painful part of the month" quote `[fictional]` | medium | urgency, qualitative |

## Validation plan

1. Watch three merchants do the current export, edit, re-upload loop end to end; the smallest version replaces exactly that loop and nothing more.
2. Define the destructive-action guardrail (preview diff plus undo) before any build, and confirm with the same three that it clears their risk bar.

## Routing

-> `define-problem-statement` to frame the job crisply, then `deliver-prd` / `deliver-user-stories` for a narrow first version (in-app bulk edit plus preview and undo), explicitly excluding a rules engine from v1.

## Sources

- Merchant counts, ticket volumes, and quotes are `[fictional]` and illustrative.
