Before implementing anything, interrogate the proposed design with these lenses:

1. Value Exchange Audit

For every gate or friction point ask: "what does the user get in return?"

If signup is required to post: is the benefit (persistent handle, profile) worth the friction?
If signup is optional: what triggers someone to want to sign up?
Red flag: adding auth to own anonymous actions that were already working without it.

2. Contradiction Check

Surface tensions between stated goals:

"Anonymous by design" + "email required" → make the privacy guarantee explicit in UI
"Permanent handle" + "feel free to rant" → handle is public, not email — still anonymous to strangers
"Community feel" + "no following/DMs" → leaderboard + reactions ARE the social graph for now

For each user journey ask:

Before implementing anything, interrogate the proposed design with these lenses:

For every gate or friction point ask: "what does the user get in return?"

If signup is required to post: is the benefit (persistent handle, profile) worth the friction?
If signup is optional: what triggers someone to want to sign up?
Red flag: adding auth to own anonymous actions that were already working without it.

Surface tensions between stated goals:

"Anonymous by design" + "email required" → make the privacy guarantee explicit in UI
"Permanent handle" + "feel free to rant" → handle is public, not email — still anonymous to strangers
"Community feel" + "no following/DMs" → leaderboard + reactions ARE the social graph for now

For each user journey ask:

Tension	Resolution
Anonymous + email required	Email is private, handle is public. Say it explicitly on signup.
Permanent handle + rant freely	Handle ≠ real identity. Still anonymous to strangers.
Community + no social graph	Leaderboard + reactions are the graph.
Signup required + first visit friction	Feed public. React requires account. Post requires account.