An early version can be rejected for reasons that matter and reasons that do not. The challenge is to learn which is which without using every negative response as proof that people simply do not understand the idea.
Define what the pilot tests
A rough creative treatment may test the premise while leaving performance, pacing and finish unresolved. A product prototype may test navigation without demonstrating reliability. Tell reviewers what they are evaluating.
If the pilot is too incomplete to represent the central experience, negative feedback may be difficult to interpret. That is a limitation of the test, not evidence of future success.
Choose relevant reviewers
People familiar with the intended audience or task can offer useful perspectives. They still have preferences and blind spots. Combine qualitative feedback with observed behaviour where possible.
Ask what was confusing, compelling or missing before asking for an overall score. A single rating can conceal several different reactions.
Look for a revisable problem
Separate issues in the underlying premise from issues in execution. A promising idea with an unclear opening suggests a different next step from an idea whose central promise does not matter to the audience.
Keep both errors in mind
Teams can abandon a good idea too early or continue a weak one because they love it. Famous success stories do not establish which situation you are in. Use a bounded revision and another informative test when the evidence supports it. The purpose of the pilot is a better next decision, not a dramatic declaration that the idea is either destined to win or finished.