Tasks / Strategy

1000x an idea

Can the model expand an idea's ambition while keeping it tethered to a real mechanism?

Task type v1.0 · 2 tasksLast changed 6 Oct 2026 · ChangelogDifficulty

What AI gets right here, and what you’ll still have to catch

From 16 graded outputs by 8 models. 56% were usable with at most a quick edit.

Reliably right

Extreme, then back to buildable100% pass
Pushes from two-person sharing to the extreme household as the unit (any number of members, live pantry state, learning routines, delivery integration), then works back to the scoped two-person build that tests coordination.
Haiku 5.5 · API · Sharing a shopping list, 1000x
Finds the mechanism in the data100% pass
Uses the retention, conversion, session frequency, notification triggers, note usage, and invitation context to identify shared money decisions as the core mechanism, not just budgeting.
GPT-6.1 Sol · API · Budgets for two
Finds the mechanism in the data97% pass
Names household coordination as the core value (multiple members, claiming items, no duplicate buying), backs it with the 71%/22% retention gap, 38% second-device items, and duplicate tickets, and keeps coordination at the center of both the big vision and the first step.
Haiku 5.5 · API · Sharing a shopping list, 1000x

Where it slips

Proposes tests that could fail41% pass
The proposed test does not name a numeric threshold for the primary outcome; it only says to set minimum detectable effects and thresholds before launch, which is a process, not a specific threshold.
GPT-6.1 Sol · API · Budgets for two
The big version gets stronger as it grows61% pass
The memo names a demand network as a compounding mechanism but does not propose a test of whether that network effect would be large enough to matter, nor does it ask that question.
GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT · Sharing a shopping list, 1000x
Avoids unsupported claims66% pass
The statements about most financial decisions being made by more than one person and happening in texts/arguments/spreadsheets are presented as established fact without support from the supplied evidence.
Sonnet 5.5 · API · Budgets for two

How it’s graded

Each check is built on how world-class product and growth leaders do this work, as they’ve described it on Lenny’s Podcast, and names the leader it comes from.

The big version gets stronger as it grows
Does the ambitious version name a mechanism that makes it more valuable or harder to copy as it grows (each new user adding value for others, or a barrier a competitor couldn't buy), and ask whether that effect would be large enough to matter?
Passes when Names the mechanism, how it compounds with scale, and a test of whether the effect is big enough to matter.
Hamilton HelmerLenny’s Podcast

Plus our standard checks

Uses the supplied evidence correctly · Addresses the actual decision · Respects explicit constraints · Identifies material uncertainty · Avoids unsupported claims · Produces the required deliverable · Extreme, then back to buildable · Proposes tests that could fail · and 1 written for each task, which you’ll see in the tasks below.

The tasks

Read the brief, then compare up to three outputs, each with the LLM judge’s verdict on every check. Highlights mark what a PM had to fix.

The brief

You're a PM at Pocketbook. Ana has proposed shared budgets for couples; before we commit next quarter, our CEO wants the 1000x version (her note is below). Write the memo, in no more than 900 words: the most ambitious version of the idea, the mechanism that makes it work, and then what we build first and how we'll know it's working. The data is attached.

What the model was given5 items: About Pocketbook, ana_idea.md, ceo_note.md, usage_by_user_group.csv, what_shared_budgets_do.md

About PocketbookA personal budgeting app: connect your accounts, set budgets, track spending. Free, with Premium at $6 a month.

ana_idea.md3 lines · Download

# The idea (from Ana, PM)

"Let people share a budget with their partner. It's our most requested feature after bank sync for more banks."

ceo_note.md1 lines · Download

From Ruth (CEO): "Before we commit next quarter to Ana's idea, show me the 1000x version. How big could this get? Then bring it back to what we build first and how we'll know it's working. Keep it under 900 words."

usage_by_user_group.csv3 rows · Download

user_group,users,retained_at_6_months_pct,invited_someone_pct,invitee_joined_pct,premium_conversion_pct
Solo budgeters,182000,17,3,22,4
Couples sharing one budget,24600,58,100,100,19
Households (3+ people on one budget),3900,71,100,100,31

what_shared_budgets_do.md6 lines · Download

# What shared budgets do (from the data team)

- Couples who share a budget open the app on more days than solo users (11 a month against 4) and most sessions start from a notification about the other person's spending ("Alex spent $48 at the grocery store").
- 41% of couples add a "money talk" note to a transaction in their first month; the note feature was built as an afterthought.
- 16% of couples add a third person within a year (a teenager, a parent they support).
- Shared budgets started from an invite link in a shared-expenses moment (rent, a holiday) retain best.

What a strong answer doesThe answer key the graders mark against

Finds the mechanism in the data: shared money decisions, not budgeting. Couples sharing a budget retain at 58% against 17% for solo budgeters, convert to Premium at 19% against 4%, open the app on 11 days a month against 4 (mostly from notifications about the other person's spending), and use transaction notes as 'money talk'; households of 3+ retain at 71% and convert at 31%. Every shared budget brings in at least one new user by design, and 16% of couples add a third person. So the 1000x version is the place a household runs its money together (shared goals, who pays for what, conversations on transactions, extended family), growing through invitations at shared-expense moments (rent, holidays). Asks whether the effect is large enough to matter: each new member makes the budget more useful to the others, so it compounds. Works back to a first step that keeps the mechanism: shared budgets launched from an invite at a shared-expense moment, with spending notifications and transaction notes built in, measured on invites accepted, retention of invited users, and Premium conversion for couples, with thresholds.

Task

Staff-level · v1.0

The outputs

8 setups answered this brief.

GPT-6.1 SolAPI93Usable with a quick edit GPT-6 AstraChatGPT93Usable with a quick edit GPT-6 LunaAPI91Usable with a quick edit Haiku 5.5API91Usable with a quick edit Sonnet 5.5API89Usable with a quick edit Opus 5.5Claude86Usable with a quick edit Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteGemini45Needs more work Gemini 3.8 FlashAPI43Needs more work

GPT-6 AstraChatGPT

Usable with a quick edit9 of 10 checks passed

The memo is well-structured and evidence-based; a PM could add a specific numeric threshold for the test outcome with a quick edit, without redoing any reasoning.

Output

From shared budgets to the household money network

To: Ruth From: Product Decision: Invest next quarter in testing shared money coordination—not simply adding a second user to a budget.

The 1000x version

Pocketbook becomes the place people manage money with everyone whose financial life touches theirs.

Start with a couple managing groceries and rent. Expand to saving for a home, giving a teenager spending autonomy, supporting a parent, and coordinating expenses across a blended family. One person can belong to several private money circles without exposing their entire financial life.

Today, Pocketbook answers: “Where did my money go?” The ambitious version answers: “What can we afford together, what have we agreed to, and what happens next?” It becomes a durable coordination layer above individual bank accounts—not a joint bank account and not a public financial social network.

That expands both our acquisition model and our reason to exist. Each shared obligation can introduce another person; each new life stage can create another circle. We stop rebuilding an individual’s budgeting habit from scratch and become part of an ongoing relationship.

This could support a materially larger subscription business. For scale, one million users converting at the observed couples rate of 19% would represent $13.7 million in annualized subscription revenue at $6/month. That is an illustration, not a forecast: we have neither established a million-user market nor shown that sharing causes that conversion rate.

Why it could work

Our strongest signal is not feature-request volume. It is that shared budgeting appears to change the product’s underlying behavior loop.

User group	Six-month retention	Premium conversion
---	---:	---:
Solo budgeters	17%	4%
Couples sharing one budget	58%	19%
Households of 3+	71%	31%

Couples also open Pocketbook on 11 days per month versus four for solo users. Most sessions start with a notification about a partner’s spending. And 41% add a “money talk” note during their first month—even though notes were an afterthought.

The mechanism is coordination:

A real obligation creates an invitation. Rent or a holiday provides a concrete reason to join. These shared-expense entry points already retain best.
Shared activity creates useful context. A transaction changes what remains available to both people.
Context creates a conversation or decision. A note resolves uncertainty; a budget adjustment records the agreement.
Repeated decisions create shared history. Pocketbook becomes more useful as a relationship’s financial memory accumulates.
New responsibilities extend the network. Sixteen percent of couples add a third person within a year.

This is a local network effect: the product improves when the right person joins, not when everyone joins.

But the evidence is observational. Existing sharers may be unusually motivated or financially organized. The groups’ 100% invitation and join rates largely reflect who qualifies as a sharer; they are not evidence of a frictionless funnel. We must test whether we can create the behavior, not merely identify people who already have it.

What we build first

A private, two-person shared-expense circle, launched around one immediate obligation.

Next quarter’s experience:

Create a circle for rent, groceries, or a trip; set an amount and timeframe.
Invite a partner through a link that explains the purpose and exactly what will be visible.
Let the partner join without first connecting a bank account.
Explicitly select transactions to share; keep all other accounts and spending private.
Show the shared amount remaining and support transaction-level notes.
Offer controllable activity notifications and a lightweight weekly check-in.
Make leaving, revoking access, and handling shared history understandable.

We should build on existing sharing and notes rather than launch an entirely separate product. We should not begin with payments, joint accounts, complex household roles, or automated financial advice.

Trust is part of the mechanism. Unwanted visibility can turn coordination into surveillance. Privacy controls and notification consent are launch requirements, not follow-up polish.

How we know it is working

Randomize eligible solo users, before they invite anyone, into the new shared-expense journey or today’s experience. Keep each resulting circle in one experiment arm. Analyze outcomes per assigned initiator, not only among successful sharers.

Primary near-term outcome: incremental eight-week retained coordinators—initiators whose circle has both people active and a meaningful shared-budget action in weeks seven or eight.

Track the full mechanism: invitation sent → partner joins → both contribute → first note or budget decision → repeated coordination. Notification opens alone do not count as success.

Also measure net additional retained invitees, Premium conversion, and support costs. Guardrails include privacy complaints, unwanted notifications, partner exits, and any reduction in initiators’ overall retention.

Set the minimum worthwhile lift and required sample size before launch using baseline rates and implementation costs. Scale only with credible retention improvement, healthy guardrails, and evidence that both partners get value. Maintain a holdout for six-month retention and monetization.

The bet is not that two people need one spreadsheet. It is that shared financial decisions can become Pocketbook’s acquisition engine, daily utility, and long-term moat.

Grades and run details

Decision model 95 · LLM judge 91

Decision model checks

passUses the supplied evidence correctly56%
passAddresses the actual decision91%
passRespects explicit constraints31%
passIdentifies material uncertainty98%
passAvoids unsupported claims53%
passProduces the required deliverable70%
passFinds the mechanism in the data100%
passExtreme, then back to buildable100%
partialProposes tests that could fail76%
passThe big version gets stronger as it grows89%

Run

Run: #1
Time to output: 37 s
Submitted: 5 Oct 2026

Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteGemini

Needs more than a quick edit4 of 10 checks passed

The memo contains unsupported claims about the market and lacks explicit decision-change conditions and complete test design, so a PM would need to rework the evidence and tests before using it.

Output

MEMORANDUM

TO: Ruth, CEO FROM: Product Team DATE: October 24, 2023 SUBJECT: The 1000x Version of Shared Budgets (Ana’s Proposal)

1. The 1000x Version: Pocketbook as the Operating System for Shared Life

Right now, personal finance assumes an individual user in a quiet room looking at bar charts. But money doesn't live in a vacuum—it is the friction point of human relationships.

If we take Ana’s proposal to its logical, 1000x extreme, Pocketbook stops being an app for tracking your money and becomes the financial operating system for shared lives.

Today, couples use a fractured stack of tools to manage their shared reality: splitwise for dinner bills, spreadsheets for rent, Venmo for groceries, silent resentment for lifestyle inflation, and separate banking apps that don't talk to each other. It is exhausting.

The 1000x version of Pocketbook captures this entire surface area. We don't just "share a budget"—we remove the emotional labor of financial coordination. Imagine an ecosystem where: * The system auto-negotiates equity: It understands income differentials and automatically scales contributions to shared goals without manual math. * Micro-communication replaces macro-arguments: Financial friction is dissolved via contextual, inline micro-notes on transactions ("Bought your mom's gift early! ❤️"), turning spending alerts from panic triggers into connection points. * Organic household expansion: It scales naturally from couples to households (adding aging parents or kids) and handles life milestones (buying a home, taking a sabbatical, having a child) as collaborative multiplayer projects rather than administrative nightmares.

Look at our current data. It already whispers this truth: Solo users retain at 17% and convert to Premium at 4%. But Couples retain at 58% and convert at 19%. Households retain at 71% and convert at 31%.

Shared budgets are not just a feature request; they are our escape hatch from single-player churn. The 1000x version transforms Pocketbook from a utility you check once a week into the digital kitchen table where couples align their lives.

---

2. The Mechanism: Why This Spreads Exponentially

The engine of the 1000x version is relational virality.

Traditional personal finance apps have terrible organic loops because money is private and taboo. You don't text your friend a screenshot of your grocery budget.

Shared budgets invert this entirely. By definition, a budget for a couple requires an invitation. Our data proves this mechanism is already working: couples have a 100% invite rate because the product cannot function without the second person.

The compounding loop looks like this: 1. The Trigger: A couple experiences a shared-expense friction point (paying rent, booking a holiday) and one partner invites the other via Pocketbook. 2. The Dopamine Hit: The invitee joins, and within minutes, they receive their first real-time notification about shared financial momentum ("Alex spent $48 at the grocery store"). Engagement spikes immediately (couples open the app 11 times a month versus 4 for solo users). 3. The Cultural Artifact: They use the accidental "money talk" note feature (which 41% of couples adopt in month one). Money stops being a taboo source of anxiety and becomes a shared chat thread. 4. The Network Effect: As life expands, the network expands. 16% of couples naturally add a third person within a year—a teenager learning financial literacy or an aging parent they support.

We don't need expensive paid acquisition to scale this. Every shared budget creates an involuntary, high-intent acquisition channel for our highest-value segment.

---

3. What We Build First & How We Know It’s Working

To capture the 1000x vision without boiling the ocean next quarter, we must sequence our roadmap ruthlessly. We will not build complex multi-user permissioning or robo-advising out of the gate.

We build the "Shared-Expense Moment" onboarding flow.

Based on data showing that shared budgets originating from specific collaborative moments retain best, our Q1 MVP focuses exclusively on friction-free pairing around a single shared goal or expense: * Streamlined Invite-to-Split: Allow a user to instantly spin up a shared bucket for a specific vector (e.g., "Our Apartment" or "Japan Trip") and text an invite link that resolves in under 10 seconds. * First-Class "Money Talk" Notes: Elevate the transaction note feature from an afterthought into a core UI element. Make leaving a context note or emoji reaction on a partner’s transaction frictionless. * The Notification Loop: Tune real-time push notifications so they foster alignment rather than anxiety, capitalizing on the behavior that drives our 11x/month engagement.

#### How We’ll Know It’s Working (Metrics for Q1): 1. Viral Coefficient (K-factor) of Invites: We will track the percentage of new solo sign-ups who successfully dispatch a partner invite within 7 days, targeting a baseline of >25% conversion from solo to shared. 2. Day-30 Retention of Paired Users: We will measure whether our MVP couples maintain the elevated retention baseline (targeting >50% retained at 30 days, pacing toward our 58% 6-month benchmark). 3. Note Adoption Rate: We will track whether >40% of newly paired couples use the transaction note feature in their first 14 days, proving that we are successfully replacing financial stress with communication. 4. Free-to-Premium Conversion Lift: We will monitor if newly paired users convert to our $6/month Premium tier at rates mirroring our existing cohort (19%+).

Ana’s proposal isn't just a feature to check a box against our competitors. It is the architectural shift that transforms Pocketbook into an indispensable, sticky, multi-player platform. Let’s build it.

Claims the judge couldn’t find in the brief

Today, couples use a fractured stack of tools: Splitwise, spreadsheets, Venmo, separate banking apps, etc.
Traditional personal finance apps have terrible organic loops because money is private and taboo.

Grades and run details

Decision model 60 · LLM judge 36

Decision model checks

passUses the supplied evidence correctly7%
partialAddresses the actual decision22%
partialRespects explicit constraints29%
failIdentifies material uncertainty70%
failAvoids unsupported claims77%
passProduces the required deliverable62%
passFinds the mechanism in the data97%
passExtreme, then back to buildable97%
partialProposes tests that could fail86%
partialThe big version gets stronger as it grows40%

Run

Run: #1
Time to output: 7 s
Submitted: 5 Oct 2026

Opus 5.5Claude

Usable with a quick edit8 of 10 checks passed

The memo is well-structured, data-driven, and actionable. A quick edit to label the willpower claim as a hypothesis would resolve the only unsupported statement.

Output

Memo: Shared budgets, the 1000x version

To: Ruth | From: Product | Re: Ana's shared-budgets proposal

The short version

The big opportunity isn't a "share a budget" setting. It's turning Pocketbook from a tool one person uses alone into the place a household runs its money and talks about it. Our current users already show this. People who share a budget are 14% of our users. They account for about 36% of users still with us at six months and about 45% of Premium subscribers.

Group	Users	Retained at 6 mo	Premium
Solo	182,000	17% (~30,900)	4% (~7,300)
Couples	24,600	58% (~14,300)	19% (~4,700)
Households (3+)	3,900	71% (~2,800)	31% (~1,200)

The 1000x version

Every household's money runs through Pocketbook: couples first, then the teenager, the parent you support, the roommates, the trip group. Each group recruits its next member at the moment money is shared. We stop selling budgeting discipline to individuals and become the shared ledger and conversation for the people you split life with. The business model becomes a household plan, not a per-person subscription.

The growth engine is the key difference. Solo budgeting apps grow one user at a time through marketing. A household product grows through its members. Each shared rent payment, holiday or new dependent is a chance to recruit someone.

The mechanism: three loops

1. The other person is the reason to open the app. Couples open Pocketbook 11 days a month, against 4 for solo users. Most of those sessions start from a notification about the partner's spending ("Alex spent $48 at the grocery store"). Solo budgeting runs on willpower, which fades. Shared budgeting runs on another person, who keeps giving you reasons to open the app.

2. The product is the money conversation. 41% of couples add a "money talk" note to a transaction in their first month. They do this even though notes were an afterthought. Couples are using us to talk about money, not just to track it. Talk is the habit that holds a household together.

3. Groups grow, and they start at shared-expense moments. 16% of couples add a third person within a year, and households retain best of all (71%). Shared budgets that start from an invite link during rent or a holiday retain best.

Today the growth loop barely works. 3% of solo users invite someone, and 22% of those invitees join. That's under 1 new member per 100 solo users. This is the biggest lever we have.

What could make this wrong

The numbers above are not proof that sharing causes retention. Couples who found today's sharing are self-selected: committed, organised, probably already engaged. The 100% invite and join rates for shared groups are true by definition, not a result.

The real question is whether a solo user nudged into sharing starts behaving like today's couples (58% retention) or stays like a solo user (17%). The plan below is built to answer that.

We also need to confirm how the 19% and 31% Premium rates are counted, per person or per budget, before designing any household pricing.

What we build first (next quarter)

Couples only. We build three things, aimed at the moments the data says matter:

"Share this" on a transaction or bill. Rent, a trip, a big purchase each generate an invite link that opens straight into a shared budget. This targets the entry point that retains best, instead of a buried settings page.
Partner activity notifications, on by default. Users get simple controls over what their partner sees, for example categories only or purchases over $X. Privacy is a real risk in couples' money; getting the defaults wrong will cause harm and generate support tickets.
Notes upgraded to replies on transactions. This turns the afterthought into a lightweight conversation thread.

Not this quarter: - 3+ person households - Roommate or trip groups - Household pricing

These come only if the couples loop proves causal.

How we'll know it's working

We'll run a holdout: a random slice of solo users who don't see the new invite prompts. That lets us measure impact rather than selection.

Leading indicators (readable within the quarter):

Metric	Today	Target
Solo users who invite someone	3%	8–10%
Invitees who join	22%	35%+
New members per 100 solo users	under 1	about 3
Active days per month, new couples (first 30 days)	—	9+ (vs 11 for today's couples)
New couples adding a note in month one	—	35%+ (vs 41% today)

Lagging indicators (we'll have early reads; full answer after the quarter): - 3-month retention of new couples against the holdout, as an early read. 6-month retention against the holdout as the verdict. - Premium conversion of new couples against the holdout.

Decision rule: We commit to the household roadmap if both of these hold: - Couples formed through the new flows retain at least twice as well as the holdout at 3 months. - They are active more than 8 days a month.

If they look like solo users, we've learned the uplift is mostly selection. In that case shared budgets stay a solid retention feature for people who already want it, not a growth strategy. That is still worth shipping, but it's a 2x, not a 1000x.

The ask: One quarter for one squad to build the three couples features and the holdout. The household decision goes on the next planning cycle, made on real evidence.

Claims the judge couldn’t find in the brief

Solo budgeting runs on willpower, which fades.

Grades and run details

Decision model 90 · LLM judge 82

Decision model checks

passUses the supplied evidence correctly30%
passAddresses the actual decision94%
passRespects explicit constraints41%
passIdentifies material uncertainty100%
partialAvoids unsupported claims34%
passProduces the required deliverable88%
passFinds the mechanism in the data100%
passExtreme, then back to buildable100%
partialProposes tests that could fail36%
passThe big version gets stronger as it grows96%

Run

Run: #1
Time to output: 46 s
Submitted: 5 Oct 2026

Check by check

Where the outputs differ comes first. Open a check to read the judge’s reasons. “Mixed” means the two graders disagreed.

Where they differ 6

Uses the supplied evidence correctlyRightMixedMixed

GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT

All factual claims about the current situation are taken directly from the supplied data or context, with no inventions.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini

The output invents claims about the current market situation (fractured stack of tools, Splitwise, Venmo, spreadsheets) and about traditional personal finance apps' organic loops, none of which appear in the supplied context.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

The claim 'Solo budgeting runs on willpower, which fades' is a statement about the current situation not found in the supplied context and not derivable from it.

Addresses the actual decisionRightWrongRight

GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT

Commits early to investing in testing shared money coordination, framed for Ruth, and states that scaling depends on credible retention improvement and guardrails.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini

The memo commits to building the shared-expense onboarding flow but never states what result or condition would change that decision.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Commits to building couples features first with a holdout, and sets a clear decision rule for the household roadmap based on retention and activity thresholds.

Identifies material uncertaintyRightWrongRight

GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT

Explicitly names selection bias and observational nature of the data, and says the test will resolve whether we can create the behavior.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini

The output does not name any specific unknowns that could change the decision or explain how they would be resolved.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Names selection bias, definitional invite rates, and the open question of whether nudged solo users will behave like existing couples, and proposes a holdout to resolve it.

Avoids unsupported claimsRightWrongWrong

GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT

Hypotheses and forecasts are clearly labelled (e.g., 'may be', 'illustration, not a forecast'), and confident claims are backed by evidence.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini

The output presents the fractured tool stack and the taboo nature of money as established facts without labelling them as hypotheses, and the evidence does not support them.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Presents 'Solo budgeting runs on willpower, which fades' as an established fact without labelling it as a hypothesis, and the evidence does not support it.

Proposes tests that could failWrongWrongRight

GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT

The test does not name a numeric threshold for the primary outcome; it only says to set a minimum worthwhile lift before launch, which is not a specific threshold in the memo.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini

The metrics lack the action each outcome would trigger, and the premium conversion metric has no measurement window; the tests do not specify what happens if thresholds are missed.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Each test has numeric thresholds (e.g., 8-10% invite rate, 35%+ join, 9+ active days, 2x retention vs holdout), a measurement window (within quarter for leading, 3-6 months for lagging), and a clear action for each outcome.

The big version gets stronger as it growsRightWrongRight

GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT

Names local network effects and accumulated shared history as compounding mechanisms, and asks whether the effect is large enough to matter via the proposed test.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini

The output names relational virality and describes compounding, but it does not include a test of whether the compounding effect is large enough to matter, only a target for invite conversion.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Names growth through members at shared-expense moments as the compounding mechanism, and tests whether the effect is large enough to matter via the holdout and decision rule.

All got right 4

Respects explicit constraintsRightRightRight

GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT

The memo is addressed to Ruth, stays under 900 words, and proposes a test that would enforce the decision to invest only if results warrant.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini

The output is a memo under 900 words, addressed to Ruth, and includes the ambitious version, mechanism, first step, and success metrics as requested.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Delivers a memo to Ruth under 900 words that covers the 1000x version, mechanism, first build, and success metrics.

Produces the required deliverableRightRightRight

GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT

Delivers a complete memo with the 1000x version, mechanism, first step, and success criteria, in the right form and within the word limit.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini

The memo is complete, in the correct form, within the word limit, and a PM could act on the proposed first step and metrics with light edits.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

The memo is complete, correctly addressed, within the word limit, and actionable by the CEO with at most light edits.

Finds the mechanism in the dataRightRightRight

GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT

Uses retention, conversion, notification, note, and invitation data to identify shared money coordination as the mechanism, not just budgeting.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini

The memo cites retention, conversion, notification, and note-usage data to identify shared money decisions and relational virality as the mechanism, not just budgeting.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Cites the retention, conversion, and behavior differences (11 vs 4 days, notifications, notes, shared-expense invites) and names shared money decisions and conversation as the mechanism.

Extreme, then back to buildableRightRightRight

GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT

Pushes to a household money network with multiple circles, then works back to a concrete two-person shared-expense circle that tests the coordination mechanism.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini

It pushes the idea to a 'financial operating system for shared lives' extreme, then works back to a concrete first step (shared-expense moment onboarding) that tests the same mechanism.

Opus 5.5 · Claude

Pushes to a household money platform where every household runs its money through Pocketbook, then works back to a concrete first step of couples-only features that test the same mechanism.

Results

Every setup we’ve tested on this task type, across all its tasks and repeats, graded on the current checklist. Calibrated. Where our PM checked the graders by hand, they agreed on 88% of 118 checks.

#	Model · Harness	Decision model	LLM judge	Runs	Critical failures
1	Haiku 5.5withAPI	85.5	100.0	2	None
2	GPT-6 AstrawithChatGPT	93.0	91.3	2	None
3	GPT-6.1 SolwithAPI	90.7	87.1	2	None
4	GPT-6 LunawithAPI	88.2	83.0	2	None
5	Opus 5.5withClaude	92.7	78.4	2	None
6	Sonnet 5.5withAPI	90.7	74.2	2	None
7	Gemini 3.8 FlashwithAPI	52.5	39.0	2	None
8	Gemini 3.5 Flash-LitewithGemini	50.5	34.8	2	None

What you get for the cost

No setup scores within 5 points of the leader at half its cost or less here, so the leader is also the best value.

Nobody beats these on both score and cost

Task score and relative cost by setup
Setup	Task score	Relative cost (cheapest = 1)
GPT-6 Luna · API	84	1.0×
Haiku 5.5 · API	93	2.1×
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini	40	2.9×
Gemini 3.8 Flash · API	43	9.1×
GPT-6.1 Sol · API	89	15×
Sonnet 5.5 · API	81	31×
Opus 5.5 · Claude	84	59×
GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT	92	74×

Cost is each output’s tokens at the model’s list price, shown relative to the cheapest setup. Runs done in an app have no usage meter, so theirs are estimated from the same setup’s measured runs. How we compare cost

The PM job

Finding the bigger version of a good idea.

Why it matters

Ambition without mechanism is fan fiction. The useful version pushes to the extreme, then works back to something buildable.

What good looks like

Names the mechanism that scales
Keeps the core insight
Works back to a first step you could build

Deliberately not measured

Capability tested

Ambitious expansion

The failure we’re looking for

Bigger adjectives, same idea

Grading

Decision model and LLM judge, calibrated against a blind PM review

What AI gets right here, and what you’ll still have to catch

Reliably right

Where it slips

How it’s graded

The big version gets stronger as it grows

Plus our standard checks

The tasks

The outputs

Output

From shared budgets to the household money network

The 1000x version

Why it could work

What we build first

How we know it is working

Grades and run details

Decision model checks

Run

Output

1. The 1000x Version: Pocketbook as the Operating System for Shared Life

2. The Mechanism: Why This Spreads Exponentially

3. What We Build First & How We Know It’s Working

Claims the judge couldn’t find in the brief

Grades and run details

Decision model checks

Run

Output

Memo: Shared budgets, the 1000x version

The short version

The 1000x version

The mechanism: three loops

What could make this wrong

What we build first (next quarter)

How we'll know it's working

Claims the judge couldn’t find in the brief

Grades and run details

Decision model checks

Run

Check by check

Where they differ 6

All got right 4

Results

What you get for the cost

About the task

The PM job

Why it matters

What good looks like

Deliberately not measured