a builder's codex
codex · operators · Anuj Rathi · ins_four-bb-prioritization

Sort the roadmap into four buckets — Brilliant Basics, Bread-and-Butter, Big Bets, Breaking Bad

By Anuj Rathi · VP Product (former Swiggy, Jupiter) · 2026-04-28 · podcast · Anuj Rathi on Full-Stack PM, Working Backwards, India Marketplace Dynamics — Lenny's Podcast

Tier B · TL;DR
Sort the roadmap into four buckets — Brilliant Basics, Bread-and-Butter, Big Bets, Breaking Bad

Claim

Most teams treat all work as equally urgent. Anuj's four-bucket framework makes the bucket explicit: Brilliant Basics (reliability, infrastructure — never tag as tech debt), Bread-and-Butter (iteration on existing campaigns/features), Big Bets (larger ideas with named risk), Breaking Bad (existential redefinition of the company). Confusion between buckets produces sprawl; clarity on the mix produces leverage.

Mechanism

Each bucket has a different cost of failure, success criterion, and stakeholder. Lumping them together forces a single review cadence and a single risk tolerance, both wrong. Sorting the work into the four buckets surfaces over- and under-investment. Most companies under-fund Brilliant Basics (treats them as debt to delay) and over-fund Bread-and-Butter (the safe, visible work).

Conditions

Holds when:

Fails when:

Evidence

"Brilliant Basics... you cannot brand as tech debt. These are important, the company's built on that. Bread and Butter is your backlog... Big Bets are larger ideas... Breaking Bad is where you redefine your company."

— Anuj Rathi on Lenny's Podcast, 2026-04-28

Signals

Counter-evidence

The labels invite over-engineered prioritization theatre. Some operators (Brian Halligan, Brian Chesky) argue for one or two clear bets per quarter, with everything else compressed. Anuj's framework is more useful in large mature companies; smaller orgs may want simpler frames.

Cross-references

Open the interactive view → View original source → Markdown source →