Score 5
Context input clarity
Users can paste or share visible post text without social OAuth or hidden account access.
Benchmark scorecard
Mobile web share/copy MVP benchmark
The mobile web share/copy MVP benchmark should pass before TypeToSell invests in native keyboards. A strong benchmark means users paste or share visible post context, generate three drafts, choose one, copy it, return to the social app, edit, and manually post more than once. It proves the reply job before native implementation cost.
Last updated: July 11, 2026. These are planning benchmarks, not customer outcome claims.
Benchmark method
How this scorecard should be read
The benchmark scores the mobile web MVP on context input clarity, selected draft copy, repeat usage, quota and billing reuse, mobile readability, support burden, and manual posting comprehension.
Benchmark scores
Scorecard
Score 5
Selected draft copy
Only the chosen draft is copied, and users can still edit tone, facts, CTA pressure, and platform fit before posting.
Score 4
Repeat mobile usage
The MVP should show repeat sessions before native work becomes a priority.
Score 5
Native dependency
The flow avoids app-store review, keyboard permissions, and extension review during validation.
Score 5
Manual approval safety
The final Reply, Post, or Comment action stays outside TypeToSell so the user remains accountable for publishing.
Evidence to collect
What data should prove readiness?
Mobile generation starts
Count mobile sessions where users submit visible post context.
Selected copy events
Track which generated draft is copied from mobile and whether users return after choosing a draft.
Return-user behavior
Look for repeat mobile sessions before counting the MVP as validated.
Friction tags
Collect complaints about copy-back, context entry, screen size, or draft quality.
Interpretation rules
How should the benchmark guide the roadmap?
Pass before native
Move to Android keyboard only when copied drafts and repeat sessions are real.
Do not overread first use
A single generation proves interest, but repeat copied drafts are needed before native demand is credible.
Keep broad fallback
Even after native work, mobile web remains the fallback for every surface.
Fix output before insertion
If drafts are weak, native insertion will not solve the real problem.
Risk controls
Keep benchmark pages honest
Fake performance proof
Benchmark pages can sound like measured customer outcomes even when they are a planning scorecard.
Label scores as TypeToSell decision benchmarks, not user results, revenue lift, rankings, ratings, or conversion claims.
Native availability drift
A high benchmark score can make roadmap surfaces sound like shipped native products instead of readiness planning.
Keep Android keyboard, iOS keyboard, Share Extension, Safari iOS, and Firefox Android claims framed as roadmap or planning until verified.
Automation pressure
Scorecards can reward speed so much that manual approval gets treated as optional.
Keep manual final posting, selected draft action, and editable text as pass-fail criteria.
Related reading
Connect benchmark evidence to execution
FAQ
Benchmark questions
What should mobile web prove?
It should prove that phone users can provide context, generate drafts, copy one, return to the social app, and post manually.
What benchmark unlocks Android keyboard?
Repeated Android mobile web use plus specific copy-back friction is the strongest unlock signal.
Does mobile web benchmark include auto-posting?
No. Auto-posting is outside the TypeToSell safety model because the user chooses, edits, and posts manually.