Tasks / Challenge

1000x an idea

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

Measures the systemTask v1.0 · 2 casesDifficulty

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

From 14 graded outputs by 7 models. 36% were usable with at most a quick edit.

Reliably right

  1. Extreme, then back to buildable96% pass
    It pushes the worker dimension to an extreme portable earnings network, then works back to a concrete first step that tests the same mechanism.
    GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT · From tip calculator to worker network
  2. Finds the mechanism the data hides93% pass
    It centers the mechanism on workers with second jobs pulling new restaurants onto Tally, using the 41% second-job share and the 57 faster, cheaper worker-led signups.
    GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT · From tip calculator to worker network
  3. Addresses the actual decision91% pass
    It commits early to the worker-led distribution thesis over the AI operating system and states the result that would stop the bet.
    GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT · From tip calculator to worker network

Where it slips

  1. Proposes tests that could fail39% pass
    Several gates lack explicit measurement windows or clear actions for every outcome, such as the 25% lift gate and the 10% monthly adoption gate.
    GPT-6.1 Sol · API · From tip calculator to worker network
  2. Avoids unsupported claims63% pass
    It presents several causal, competitive, and data-structure claims as established facts without support in the pack.
    Sonnet 5.5 · API · From tip calculator to worker network
  3. Respects explicit constraints66% pass
    It violates the length constraint and proposes a stop threshold whose arithmetic is internally inconsistent.
    Sonnet 5.5 · API · From tip calculator to worker network

Case viewer

Read the brief, then put up to three outputs side by side, 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 Pantry. Aisha, one of our PMs, has proposed letting people share a shopping list with one partner. Before we commit next quarter to it, our CEO, Lena Brandt, wants to see the 1000x version: how big could this idea get? Write a memo for Lena and Aisha of no more than 700 words that takes the idea to its most ambitious version and then back to what we should build first, and how we'll know it's working. What we know is below.

What the model was given5 items: About Pantry, Aisha's proposal, What we already see, What hasn't worked, Constraint
About PantryA shopping-list app. 2.4 million monthly active users, free, with a $4.99-a-month Plus plan that 3% of users pay for. The team for this work: four engineers and a designer, for one quarter.
Aisha's proposal“Let a user invite one partner to a list. Both can add and tick off items.”
What we already seeSome users already share their login with a partner to get the same effect. Lists edited from two or more devices on different phone numbers: 11% of lists. Users whose list is edited from two or more devices keep using Pantry at month 3 at 71%, against 22% for everyone else. On those lists, 38% of items are added by the second device. The most common support request is 'we both bought the milk': 1,900 tickets last quarter about duplicate purchases.
What hasn't workedRecipes and meal plans launched a year ago; 4% of users have opened them in the last month. Lena's note: “Whatever we do, it probably needs AI in it.”
ConstraintLegal: we can't track anyone's location without an explicit opt-in from that person, and we can't show one person's location to another without the second person's opt-in too.
What a strong answer doesThe answer key the graders mark against

Finds the mechanism in the data: the value is several people coordinating one household's shopping (71% against 22% month-3 retention when a list is edited from two devices, 38% of items added by the second person, 1,900 duplicate-purchase tickets), not the list itself and not recipes (4% use them). Pushes that one dimension to the extreme, such as the list as the household's shared memory where everyone's needs flow in, nobody double-buys and each errand goes to whoever is best placed (with location only on opt-in from both people), rather than adding AI features for their own sake. Works back to a first step four engineers can ship in a quarter that tests the coordination mechanism: shared lists for the whole household (not just one partner) with a live 'I'm at the shop' claim so items aren't bought twice. Sets a threshold, such as the share of lists with a second active editor and duplicate-purchase tickets per shared list, and says what result would stop the bigger bet. Uses AI only where it serves coordination, if at all.

Critical failures (cap the score at 40)
  • Builds the ambitious version on recipes, meal plans or AI for one person, dropping household coordination
  • Proposes tracking or sharing a person's location without their explicit opt-in
Case

Mid-level · v1.1 · synthetic · B2C, consumer app, retention, ambition

The outputs

7 setups answered this brief. Pick up to three to read side by side.

Needs more than a quick edit0 of 10 checks passed

A PM would need to correct unsupported evidence, replace the one-partner first step with a household-coordination test, and add explicit stop/continue thresholds. The reasoning is not usable without substantive revision.

Output

MEMORANDUM

To: Lena Brandt (CEO), Aisha (PM) From: Product Management Date: March 30, 2026 Subject: The 1000x Vision & Q3 Execution Plan: Household Graph

Lena asked for the 1000x version of Aisha’s "share with one partner" proposal. Here is how we take a simple list-sharing feature and turn it into the gravitational core of household commerce, followed by what we actually build in Q3 with our 4 engineers and 1 designer.

---

Part 1: The 1000x Vision (The Household OS)

If we zoom out to the ultimate limit, a shopping list isn’t a list of items—it’s the intent layer for the physical household.

At 1000x, Pantry is no longer an app you open when you run out of milk. It is an ambient, AI-driven household operating system. * Zero-Input Inventory: Using explicit-opt-in location data, smart home integrations, and receipt-scanning AI, Pantry automatically knows when you’re low on detergent, that you visited Costco yesterday, and that your partner is currently walking past the local bodega where organic eggs are in stock. * Predictive Autonomous Commerce: The AI doesn't just prevent duplicate milk purchases (our #1 support ticket); it predicts consumption velocity across the household, negotiates micro-subscriptions with local merchants, and routes optimized fulfillment paths without either partner lifting a finger.

We aren't building a shared document. We are building the decentralized brain of the home economy.

---

Part 2: What We Build in Q3 (The 1x Reality)

We have one quarter, four engineers, and a designer. We aren't building the 1000x sci-fi version yet, but the data screams that Aisha’s core premise is our highest-leverage bet.

Look at what’s already happening organically: * 11% of lists are already hacked together via password sharing across multiple devices. * Retention is staggering: Multi-device users have a 71% Month 3 retention rate, compared to just 22% for solo users. * True collaboration: 38% of items on those lists are added by the second device. * Pain is acute: 1,900 support tickets last quarter alone for "we both bought the milk."

We don't need a massive pivot (recipes failed because users don't want to plan meals; they want to survive the grocery run). We just need to formalize the behavior our best users have already invented.

#### The Q3 Scope: "Pantry Duo + AI Sync" 1. Frictionless Pairing: Allow a user to invite one partner via a secure link to co-own a list. Both can add and check off items in real time. 2. AI Duplicate Guard: Per Lena’s mandate, we embed lightweight AI into the sync layer. If Partner A checks off "milk" or adds an item already added by Partner B within a threshold window, the UI flags it instantly with a smart nudge ("Looks like Sam just added this!"), targeting our 1,900 duplicate-purchase tickets. 3. Privacy Compliance: Built strictly within our legal constraints—no background location tracking without explicit, dual-opt-in consent.

---

Part 3: How We Know It’s Working

We will measure success in Q3 against three core metrics:

  1. Adoption: 20% of active users invite a partner within 30 days of launch.
  2. The Retention Lift: Multiplying our multi-device magic. If the 71% M3 retention holds for formal Duo pairs, this feature alone will dramatically alter Pantry's baseline unit economics.
  3. Support Deflection: A 50% drop in "duplicate purchase" support tickets.
  4. Plus Conversion: Do shared households convert to our $4.99/mo Plus plan at a higher rate than solo users? (We suspect shared utility drives higher willingness to pay).

Aisha’s proposal is the exact right wedge. Let’s build it in Q3 and lay the groundwork for the household graph.

Claims the judge couldn’t find in the brief

  • 11% of lists are already hacked together via password sharing across multiple devices.
  • Multi-device users have 71% Month 3 retention, compared to 22% for solo users.
  • Recipes failed because users don’t want to plan meals; they want to survive the grocery run.

Grades and run details

Decision model 50 · LLM judge 1 of 11 checks
Decision model checks
  • passUses the supplied evidence correctly15%
  • partialAddresses the actual decision58%
  • partialRespects explicit constraints31%
  • partialIdentifies material uncertainty33%
  • failAvoids unsupported claims40%
  • failProduces the required deliverable36%
  • partialFinds the mechanism in the data60%
  • partialA first step that tests the big idea73%
  • passExtreme, then back to buildable55%
  • partialProposes tests that could fail58%
Run
Run
#1
Time to output
5 s
Submitted
1 Oct 2026

Usable with a quick edit9 of 10 checks passed

The memo is complete and evidence-based; a PM could quickly add numeric thresholds to the test criteria without redoing any reasoning.

Output

To: Lena Brandt and Aisha Subject: From shared lists to a household coordination layer

Thesis: Don’t think of this as a sharing toggle. Treat it as a wedge into making Pantry the place a household coordinates what it needs and who is getting it.

The 1000x version

Today, Pantry remembers a list. At its most ambitious, it remembers a household’s preferences and routines, helps everyone keep that shared memory up to date, and coordinates the next step: what’s running low, who’s picking it up, and how to avoid buying it twice. Over time, that could become a trusted AI household assistant—able to turn “we’re out of oat milk” into an editable list item, learn preferred brands, and suggest replenishment. With permission, it could eventually connect that plan to retailers or fulfillment.

AI belongs here as a useful assistant, not a badge: it can interpret messy requests and learn household patterns, but people stay in control of the list and any purchase. Location is not required for the core experience; any future location feature must follow Legal’s opt-in requirements for both people.

What to build first

Aisha’s proposal is the right wedge. In one quarter, build a reliable, account-based shared list for two people:

  • Invite a partner with their own account; both can add, edit, and check off items in near real time.
  • Show who added or checked off an item, with a simple “I’m getting this” state to reduce duplicate purchases.
  • Add basic duplicate warnings and notification controls; never silently merge or remove items.

Keep recipes, retailer integrations, automatic purchasing, location, and a broader household product out of scope. Once the shared-list flow works, test one contained AI feature—natural-language item entry that produces an editable item and quantity. The shared list must work just as well without it.

There’s a real signal: 11% of lists are already edited from multiple devices, and 38% of items on those lists come from the second device. The 71% versus 22% month-three retention gap is striking, but it’s observational, not proof that sharing causes retention. The 1,900 duplicate-milk tickets last quarter give us a concrete problem to solve.

How we’ll know

Run a randomized rollout to eligible users, comparing an invitation to use shared lists against a control. Judge impact across everyone offered the feature—not just people who accept—so we avoid mistaking high intent for product impact.

Track: - Adoption: invite acceptance and the share of invited households with two active contributors each week. - Core outcome: duplicate-purchase reports per 1,000 shared-list weeks, plus duplicate-related support tickets. - Business outcome: incremental month-three retention versus control. - Guardrails: sync failures, unwanted notifications, and privacy or account-access incidents.

Agree on go/no-go thresholds before launch. If sharing drives sustained two-person use, reduces duplicates, and improves retention in the randomized test, we have evidence to expand from “shared list” toward the household assistant. If not, we should fix the collaboration basics before adding more ambition.

Grades and run details

Decision model 90 · LLM judge 10 of 11 checks
Decision model checks
  • passUses the supplied evidence correctly74%
  • passAddresses the actual decision70%
  • passRespects explicit constraints25%
  • passIdentifies material uncertainty73%
  • passAvoids unsupported claims54%
  • partialProduces the required deliverable65%
  • passFinds the mechanism in the data70%
  • passA first step that tests the big idea69%
  • passExtreme, then back to buildable95%
  • partialProposes tests that could fail74%
Run
Run
#1
API response time
30 s
Submitted
30 Sept 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 9

Uses the supplied evidence correctlyMixedRight
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini

The memo misstates the 11% figure as password-sharing hacks, calls the 22% comparison group solo users, and asserts an unsupported cause for recipe failure.

GPT-6 Luna · API

All factual claims about the current situation are directly supported by the supplied context.

Addresses the actual decisionWrongRight
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini

It commits to building Duo + AI Sync but does not state what result would change the decision or stop the bigger bet.

GPT-6 Luna · API

The memo commits to a clear first step and states what results would lead to expanding or stopping the bigger bet.

Respects explicit constraintsWrongRight
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini

It respects the word limit and team constraint, but its proposed location-based vision does not clearly enforce the dual opt-in requirement for showing one person’s location to another.

GPT-6 Luna · API

The memo is under 700 words, respects the legal opt-in requirement for location, and proposes a scope feasible for the given team and quarter.

Identifies material uncertaintyWrongRight
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini

It names metrics but not the material unknowns that could falsify the household-coordination bet, nor how those unknowns would change the call.

GPT-6 Luna · API

It identifies that the retention gap is observational and not proof of causation, and says a randomized test will resolve whether sharing improves retention.

Avoids unsupported claimsWrongRight
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini

It presents unsupported causal and comparative claims as facts, including recipe failure motivation and solo-user retention.

GPT-6 Luna · API

Interpretations like the retention gap being observational are clearly labelled, and no confident claims go beyond the evidence.

Produces the required deliverableMixedRight
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini

It is a memo to Lena and Aisha, under 700 words, with a 1000x vision, first step, and metrics, though with gaps.

GPT-6 Luna · API

The memo is addressed to Lena and Aisha, within the word limit, and provides a complete, actionable plan.

Finds the mechanism in the dataWrongRight
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini

It uses the coordination figures but centers the first step on one-partner sharing and an AI duplicate guard rather than household-wide coordination as the mechanism.

GPT-6 Luna · API

Household coordination is named as the mechanism, backed by the supplied figures, and kept central to both the extreme version and the first step.

A first step that tests the big ideaWrongRight
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini

The first step is buildable but tests one-partner list sharing and duplicate nudges, not the broader household-coordination mechanism needed to validate the 1000x bet.

GPT-6 Luna · API

The shared list with 'I'm getting this' state fits the team and quarter, directly tests coordination, and includes a clear stop/continue condition.

Extreme, then back to buildableMixedRight
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini

It pushes to an extreme household OS but then returns to a narrower one-partner feature that does not preserve the same household-coordination mechanism.

GPT-6 Luna · API

The memo pushes the idea along the household coordination dimension to an extreme version, then works back to a concrete, buildable first step.

All got wrong 1

Proposes tests that could failWrongWrong
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini

It gives numeric thresholds for adoption, retention, support deflection, and conversion, but no measurement windows for all, no kill criteria, and no actions for failing thresholds.

GPT-6 Luna · API

The output does not set numeric thresholds for the go/no-go criteria; it only says to agree on them before launch.

Results

Every setup we’ve tested on this task, across all cases and repeats, graded on the current checklist. Calibrated: the graders match our PM on 89% of checks.

#Model · HarnessTask scoreDecision modelLLM judgeRunsCritical failures
1GPT-6 AstrawithChatGPT95.295.52None
2GPT-6.1 SolwithAPI92.786.72None
3GPT-6 LunawithAPI88.278.82None
4Opus 5.5withClaude90.774.62None
5Sonnet 5.5withAPI90.265.92None
6Gemini 3.8 FlashwithAPI71.134.521 capped
7Gemini 3.5 Flash-LitewithGemini61.417.02None

About the task

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

    This task measures the whole setup. Tools, instructions and skills in the harness do real work here, so read the harness as carefully as the model name.