This article seems to be more of a critique of what our understanding of what an MVP is has devolved into, and a big neon sign pointing us in the direction of t

This article seems to be more of a critique of what our understanding of what an MVP is has devolved into, and a big neon sign pointing us in the direction of the original idea of an MVP. It's suggesting that an MVP was originally just a test of the assumptions that one has regarding their product, but over time we've tacked on additional requirements for what an MVP is (possibly to just make ourselves more comfortable with the process). RAT seems to be a return to the original idea of questioning the assumptions behind the things we're making, and the name Riskiest Assumption Test is on-the-nose enough that we'd hopefully never forget what it's to be used for. I'm not sure whether the author intended for this or not, but I got from the article the idea that with an MVP, people may be inclined towards testing one too many assumptions at a time, possibly due to their desire to make a product. The author drove home the importance of testing each individual assumption in the most minimal way possible, and I really appreciate this point.