Why start looking?
The decision to move out of the city is the current working trigger. Home searches and estimates may precede buying land.
ALTALAB · A2 · FINDING FOCUS
Buying triggers.
Why now?
We are looking for the event that turns thoughts about a home into concrete action.
KILLER WEDGE · A NARROW FOCUS TO TEST
Who needs a home right now?
Hypothesis · not validated
Families who have decided to move out of the city and started planning a new home for themselves or their parents need a clear path to a standard-design home fit for living: before buying land, they need to understand the complete budget and whether the move is feasible.
What we have to work with
On 25 September 2026, the team relayed a summary of conversations with sales managers: customers plan to move out of the city, sometimes sell an apartment or buy a home for their parents. Some ask about home pricing first and only then look for land. These are managers' observations, not measured buyer shares.
What we test next
What turned a wish into a decision, what actions have already been taken, when the move is needed and what the available budget covers. We do not assume land ownership or an apartment sale. No new dated stories or quantitative evidence of repeatability have yet been added.
The focus is families and households (B2C), not companies. An approved statement is neither evidence of demand nor a promised move-in deadline.
How we test the hypothesis →ALTALAB · ICP COMPRESSION
From a trigger to a testable family profile.
Our focus is a family that has decided to settle outside the city for permanent living, with or without land. Separately verify the event before searching, measurable losses from uncertainty, and the roles of residents, decision makers and payers.
Managers' observations inform the working profile, not completed answers from three customers. Ask “Is this exactly you?” and record the words verbatim. The 2–4 week window, quantified losses and best customers' first-discovery sources remain unverified.
Four ICP dimensions and the validation protocol → · The 90-day GTM Reset and 50/50 plan →
Moving starts the search. Price helps determine the manufacturer.
The wish to move into a ready home sooner explains interest in modular housing. In team-reported cases, customers chose ModulDim for a more affordable price with design and quality they found acceptable.
This does not replace the moving trigger or the source through which someone discovered the brand. Follow-up conversations should clarify comparable specifications, the full budget, promised timelines and the actual outcome.
Agreed positioning and brand ambition →THREE DIFFERENT QUESTIONS
Event ≠ selection motive ≠ channel.
Why choose us?
In customer cases reported by the team, a lower price than the alternatives considered was a reason for choosing ModulDim, with design and quality acceptable to the buyer. This is a customer signal, not an independent comparison of all manufacturers.
Where can we reach the buyer?
A referral during a land transaction is a channel idea. Neither a partnership nor its effectiveness has been verified.
MARKET CONTEXT · UKRAINE · 2021–2025
The scale of the event is not our market size.
As reported in the media365 511
land purchase and sale transactions in Ukraine in 2025, according to LIGA.net quoting UTG with reference to the Ministry of Justice.
Read the LIGA.net article →This is not a count of families, not solely residential plots in Kyiv region and not validated demand for ModulDim.
| Year | Transactions |
|---|---|
| 2021 | 301 568 |
| 2022 | 133 447 |
| 2023 | 231 881 |
| 2024 | Exact figure not stated |
| 2025 | 365 511 |
The text gives only a growth rate for 2024. We do not derive an absolute figure or annual growth rates from rounded percentages. This reproduces the source, not an independently verified register extract.
What this adds to H-01
Our interpretation: land purchase is worth investigating as a point of contact. Aggregate statistics do not establish when a buyer will start building, whether they have the budget or whether they will choose a standard-design home.
The segment we still need to isolate
Kyiv and Kyiv region → land suitable for a home → a buyer intending to build → budget and readiness to act now. The shares of these groups are unknown; no estimate of potential customers is substituted.
Data provenance and limits of use
Source: LIGA.net reporting a presentation by Kostyantyn Oliynyk (UTG). The article cites Ministry of Justice data; the primary statistical table for this series has not been independently checked here. Reviewed on 23 September 2026.
The text provides no breakdown by land use, region, buyer type or unique buyer count. A transaction is not the same as a unique plot or household. We do not use the nationwide total as TAM or a sales forecast.
FROM HYPOTHESIS TO EVIDENCE
Trigger register.
H-01Hypothesis · clarification needed
Purchasing a plot of land
A family bought land to live on and began looking for a home within their budget. We are testing what prompted them to act now rather than postpone construction.
What we have to work with
The team named land purchase as a candidate trigger and separately reported an attractive price in a selection story. A direct interview and dates for this story are not yet available.
Source and limitations →What remains unknown
The land purchase date, start of the search, first enquiry, payment, intended move-in and consequences of waiting. We have not established whether the home search began before the land purchase.
Next step
Reconstruct the timeline of the specific case with the buyer. An interview owner and date have not yet been agreed.
What could challenge this hypothesis?
The home was chosen before the land purchase; the land was bought as an investment; the search began much later following another event; or there is no budget or intention to build now. We retain these cases rather than exclude them from the research.
H-01 is retained as an earlier hypothesis and a possible separate scenario. From 25 September 2026, land ownership is not an entry condition for the pilot: we clarify its status and check readiness before the relevant commitments and delivery.
H-03Working trigger · reported by managers
The decision to move out of the city
The motive is to live outside the city or relocate parents. The trigger is a decision to act and the start of concrete home and budget enquiries. The outcome is a home accepted by the customer as fit for living.
We first ask: “What was happening in your life when you started seriously looking for a home?” We do not insert war, outages or an apartment sale into the customer's answer. Urgency is not a reason for pressure or safety guarantees.
The AI assistant welcomes showroom visits without land ownership. We separate the home price from land, foundations, delivery, installation and connections. The final budget and timing depend on the specific site and specification; we do not promise a universal price advantage.
Access advice is a preliminary checklist. The carrier assesses turns, overhead wires, fences and equipment space along the actual route; a blanket “no 90-degree turns” rule cannot replace that assessment.
Discuss your move and a home viewing →H-02 · Separate research direction · not the current MVP
Autonomy: what makes the need urgent?
Autonomy is a desired value. A specific outage, unacceptable connection delay or cost may be the trigger. Its priority over price, move-in speed and specification is not established. We retain land-purchase hypothesis H-01 for comparison, without rewriting old stories to fit the new thesis.
First, ask neutrally what happened before the active housing search. Then verify the event, date, consequences, previous solutions and customer action. Retain rejections and cases where a battery for an existing home is enough and no new house is needed.
Validation protocol, market and product plan →PROTOCOL v2 · FROM FEEDBACK TO A PURCHASE STORY
Do not ask “why are we good?” Reconstruct what happened.
The historical customer materials explain supplier choice better than events before search. A recurring trigger has not yet been established. This is an evidence gap, not evidence that no trigger exists.
Define the unit of a story
One buyer and a specific order decision, not one audio file. Reconcile repeat conversations; do not merge people merely because they share a first name. Original audio takes precedence over machine transcripts.
Select 5–7 relevant cases
Start with housing and its intended use. If fewer cases are available, use all of them. Compare historical custom orders, the new standardized range, rental use, temporary housing and commercial premises separately. “Strongest” needs a criterion: a verified purchase and realized value, not just a high rating.
Let the customer tell the story without prompting
“Think back to when you first started seriously looking for housing. What changed?” Let the chronology emerge first. Only then ask when and how access to land arose: purchase, existing ownership or rental.
Reconstruct the full sequence
Event → active search → first discovery source → contact → viewing → offer → contract and payment → handover → actual use. Separately record the required deadline, what would have happened without the purchase, costs of delay and who made the decision.
Attach evidence and mark unknowns
For each claim: customer statement/action → date or approximate period → source and passage → our interpretation → what needs checking. Reconcile decisive audio passages with CRM records, the contract, payment and move-in date. A summary of the same call is not independent corroboration.
Compare and try to disprove
Look for a repeated pre-search event, buyer role, urgency, cost of delay and alternatives actually tried. Retain refusals, delayed decisions and negative experiences. Considering an alternative does not mean trying it unsuccessfully; viewing a house does not establish the first acquisition channel.
Make a bounded decision
If a signal repeats, define one small test with a segment, channel, observation window, buyer action and stopping rule. If no pattern emerges, record this plainly and focus the next 30 days on reconstructing stories. Budget, customer outreach and ownership require separate agreement.
The decision gate is not a count of similar quotations.
We need independent stories within one use case where the event precedes active search, the customer explains urgency, actions are dated and contradictory cases are considered. This supports testing a hypothesis, not declaring product–market fit.
30 days after an agreed start
1–5: reconcile sources and select cases. 6–18: focused follow-ups. 19–25: compare within use cases. 26–30: one approved test or an explicit conclusion that no pattern has emerged.
What does not count as validation
Approval of an idea, a high pre-move-in rating, delivery without use, praise for design, land-transaction statistics or requests for custom changes do not by themselves validate the standardized product.
For the new range, also establish which custom changes were essential to purchase and which were preferences. Do not automatically transfer a historical customization-led win to a standard specification.
RECONSTRUCT FACTS WITHOUT SUGGESTING THE ANSWER
The story of one decision.
Record actual actions and dates. Keep unknowns unknown; do not turn approximate memories into precise timelines.
- EventThe decision to change where you liveEvent and date to be clarified
- SearchFirst housing optionsDate unknown
- ContactEnquiry to ModulDimDate unknown
- DecisionContract / paymentDates and evidence to be clarified
This is an outline to investigate, not an established sequence of events. It does not confirm a sale of the first standard-design home.
01 · What changed?
Think back to when you started seriously looking for a house. What happened? First listen to the unprompted story, then clarify access to land and its timing. Do not assume the plot was necessarily purchased before the search.
02 · What determined the timing?
When did you need a home by? What would have happened if you had postponed the decision? Was there a specific deadline, cost or other reason to hurry?
03 · What were the alternatives?
Which options did you actually consider: another manufacturer, conventional construction, an existing home, renting or waiting? Why did you decide against each one?
04 · How did you find us?
Where did you first hear about ModulDim? What did you do next: enquire, visit or request a quote? When did each step happen?
05 · What did “lower price” mean?
Which offers did you compare? Did their floor area, specification, delivery, installation and utility connections match? What was the total budget, not just the house price?
06 · How did the story end?
What convinced you or stopped you? Was there a contract and payment, and when? If you have received the home, could you start living in it and what remained unresolved?
Case card for the next update through this chat
Anonymous case ID → home type → event and date → start of search → alternatives → reason to act now → enquiry source → selection motive → outcome and dates → supporting source.
Only an agreed summary is made public. This page does not collect names, contact details, plot addresses, contracts or payment documents.
IDEAS TO TEST · NOT ACTIVE CHANNELS
Reach people at the right moment.
Notaries handling land transactions
Explore an optional referral: the buyer decides whether to follow a link and enquire. Their contact details are not passed to ModulDim.
Question to test: does the person need help with a home at this stage, and is such a referral appropriate?
Where did they already look?
Choose subsequent channels from the answers: who helped them buy land, where they searched for a home and whom they trusted. Do not add platforms simply to increase reach.
What to track in a test: enquiry source, an actual housing need, the next action and the outcome. Clicks and interest are not payment.
Partners, budget, an owner and test terms have not yet been agreed. The page does not launch outreach, advertising or contact collection.
RESEARCH RULES
When do we revise a conclusion?
From one story to repeatability
Compare several independent residential buyer histories, including refusals and deferred decisions. Keep historical custom orders separate from the new series; do not mix site cabins or offices with homes.
Check the connection between the event and actual action, the reason for urgency and whether we can reach others in the same situation. One story or several similar quotes do not prove demand.
Every status needs a basis
Hypothesis → signal from a buyer history → testing against other cases → a recurring signal or a revised hypothesis. These are research stages, not a guarantee of sales.
For each change, retain the date, source, conflicting cases and next decision. Repeatability and the window from land purchase to enquiry have not yet been established.
We edit together here — only agreed updates go public.
Share new facts through the chat, clarify the wording and, after approval, update both language versions and the Tracker journal. There is no automatic access to customer records.
Development journal →Sources and limitations
A2 · Supplied AltaLab learning materials on focusing on the buying situation. This is an adaptation for ModulDim, not an assessment or endorsement by the accelerator.
Team · Clarifications of 23 September 2026: land purchase as a candidate trigger, a lower price as a reported selection motive and notaries as a channel idea. The timeline needs clarification; no primary interview is available here.
Team · 25 September 2026: a summary of sales manager conversations about deciding to move out of the city, enquiries before buying land and homes for parents. Original records and the number of independent cases have not been supplied. This supports choosing a working focus, not declaring it universal across all buyers.
This page does not change commercial metrics. The current scope and limitations of the pilot are documented separately.
Business model and traction →H-02: from an advertising signal to testing action
Two signals supplied on 23 September 2026 have been added: a Montana City energy-independent cottage advertisement and an anonymised Facebook post about water and electricity interruptions. They are not two buyers and do not confirm repeatability. First establish what happened, what the person has already done, which alternatives they considered and what supports any spending or commitment. Our own promotional comments do not count as demand.
Signals, evidence limits and the distinction between autonomy and energy independence →