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.

Critical failure: Proposes tracking or sharing a person's location without their explicit opt-in. Score capped at 40.

Needs more than a quick edit3 of 10 checks passed

A PM would need to correct unsupported current-situation claims, add a kill threshold, and make the location opt-in constraint explicit before acting on it.

Output

MEMO

TO: Lena Brandt (CEO), Aisha (PM) FROM: Product Team DATE: October 24, 2023 SUBJECT: The 1000x Vision for Shared Lists (and What We Build in Q1)

---

The Insight: Shared Lists Are Our Growth Engine

We thought Pantry was a personal productivity tool. Our data tells a different story: Pantry is a household coordination network.

Today, 11% of lists hack multi-device access using shared logins. When they do, Month 3 retention leaps from 22% to 71%, and partners contribute 38% of additions. But the experience is broken: 1,900 users wrote in last quarter because "we both bought the milk."

Solving this is not just a defensive UX fix—it is our path to category dominance.

---

The 1000x Vision: The Autonomous Household Operating System

Today, Pantry is a static scratchpad. At 1000x, Pantry is the ambient operating system for household commerce.

A household of two (and later, families or roommates) spends zero cognitive effort managing supplies: 1. Zero-Friction Ingestion: AI parses receipts, listens to ambient kitchen prompts, and tracks shared purchase cadences to predict depletion without manual entry. 2. Invisible Coordination: The app dynamically routes runs: "Alex is walking by Trader Joe's; Chris needs oat milk." Zero double-purchases, zero forgotten items. 3. From List to Fulfillment: When lists hit a threshold, Pantry either routes the physical trip via synchronized in-store navigation or dispatches the order through 1-click merchant APIs.

Instead of fighting for 4% engagement on recipes, we own the point of intent for household spending. That transforms Pantry from a $4.99/mo utility into the primary interface for a $1.5T grocery market.

---

Lena’s AI Mandate: Intelligence, Not Gimmicks

Recipes failed because users don’t want Pantry to tell them how to cook. They want Pantry to tell them what they forgot.

We will apply AI directly to the shared workflow: * The "Shared Brain" Depletion Model: An on-device ML model that maps co-purchasing cycles across the pair. When Partner A adds coffee, AI prompts Partner B: "You usually run out of oat milk two days after coffee. Add it?" * Smart De-duplication & Categorization: Auto-clustering shared chaotic inputs into store-aisle taxonomies in real time.

---

What We Build in Q1 (4 Engineers, 1 Designer)

We must earn the right to the 1000x vision by nailing real-time two-player shopping and eliminating the "both bought the milk" problem.

Scope: 1. Native Partner Pairing: Clean invite flow via magic link. Each partner gets an independent profile tied to one shared list. 2. Live Store Mode & Collision Avoidance: * When Partner A starts checking items off, Partner B gets a push notification: "Alex is shopping right now." * When an item is claimed or checked off, it updates via WebSockets in sub-second real time with an avatar badge ("Alex just grabbed the milk"), killing duplicate purchases. * Compliance note: Zero background GPS tracking required. State is triggered purely by app activity (tapping "Start Shopping" or checking off the first item). 3. Pantry AI Assistant (v1): Predictive prompt when opening the app: "Partner added 4 items. Based on your household history, did you also need eggs?" 4. Monetization Wedge: 1 shared list is free. Unlimited lists and AI Household Predictions roll into Pantry Duo ($7.99/mo) or the existing Plus plan.

---

How We’ll Know It’s Working

We will measure success over the first 60 days across three key metrics:

MetricBaselineQ1 TargetWhy It Matters
:---:---:---:---
Partner Invite & Activation11% (hacked)25% of active lists pairedValidates organic pull beyond shared logins.
"Bought the Milk" Support Tickets1,900 / quarter< 150 / quarter (>90% reduction)Proves real-time sync prevents collision.
Blended Month 3 Retention22% (solo) / 71% (paired)Lift blended MAU retention to >35%Household lock-in is our moat.

Shared shopping turns single-player churn into multi-player network effects. Let’s build it.

Claims the judge couldn’t find in the brief

  • Today, 11% of lists hack multi-device access using shared logins.
  • Recipes failed because users do not want Pantry to tell them how to cook.
  • Users want Pantry to tell them what they forgot.
  • Pantry is a static scratchpad today.
  • Pantry is a household coordination network today.
  • Pantry is the primary interface for a $1.5T grocery market.
  • 11% of active lists are currently paired.

Grades and run details

Decision model 65 · LLM judge 3 of 11 checks
Decision model checks
  • passUses the supplied evidence correctly43%
  • passAddresses the actual decision26%
  • partialRespects explicit constraints30%
  • partialIdentifies material uncertainty39%
  • failAvoids unsupported claims71%
  • failProduces the required deliverable32%
  • passFinds the mechanism in the data64%
  • passA first step that tests the big idea32%
  • passExtreme, then back to buildable90%
  • partialProposes tests that could fail78%
Run
Run
#1
API response time
21 s
Submitted
1 Oct 2026

Needs more than a quick edit9 of 10 checks passed

The memo is strong and actionable, but the invented current-workflow sentence would need to be removed or grounded before use.

Output

To: Lena Brandt and Aisha Subject: From shared lists to the coordination layer for household shopping

The 1000× version

Aisha’s proposal is not just multiplayer checkboxes. It could be the first step toward Pantry becoming the place a household coordinates everything it needs to buy.

Today, each person remembers needs, sends messages, shops, and discovers what someone else already bought. At full ambition, Pantry turns that fragmented process into one shared system: what we need, what we already have, who is handling it, and what remains undone.

An item might begin as a voice note, a pasted message, or a recurring household need. Pantry organizes it, flags likely duplicates, and—with permission—learns when to suggest replenishment. Households could eventually include roommates, caregivers, and extended family. Later, Pantry could connect that shared intent to retailer carts, substitutions, and delivery, while leaving purchasing decisions with users.

The business could expand from a personal utility into household subscriptions and, eventually, commerce revenue. But those opportunities depend on earning trust in coordination first. This is a direction, not a forecast of 1,000× revenue.

Why this wedge—not another content feature

We already see people working around the product by sharing credentials. Eleven percent of lists are edited across devices with different phone numbers; second devices contribute 38% of items on those lists. This looks like substantive participation, not occasional viewing.

Multi-device users’ month-three retention is 71%, versus 22% for others. That is evidence of opportunity, not proof that sharing causes retention: more committed households may already be selecting into this behavior. Likewise, 11% of lists does not mean 11% of users.

The clearest unmet need is concrete: 1,900 duplicate-purchase tickets last quarter. Meanwhile, recipes and meal plans reach only 4% of users monthly. We should deepen Pantry’s existing shopping workflow rather than build another destination users must remember to visit.

What we should build next quarter

With four engineers and one designer, ship one list, two separate accounts, reliable coordination:

  • Invite one partner through a secure link; accept, leave, and revoke access.
  • Both people can add and check off items, with clear attribution.
  • Fast synchronization, offline recovery, and predictable handling of simultaneous edits.
  • A lightweight “I’m buying this” claim, visible to both people, with easy release. Checking an item off means purchased; claiming it means someone is handling it.
  • Help existing credential-sharing households move to separate accounts.

Make basic sharing free: charging before establishing the collaboration habit would constrain adoption. Defer larger groups, inventory, retailer integrations, and monetization experiments.

AI belongs in service of the job, not in the launch headline. Test a small, optional assistant that converts pasted household messages into proposed list items and flags likely duplicates. Users confirm every change. Ship it only if it saves effort without introducing meaningful mistakes; it must not delay the coordination core.

No location tracking is needed. “I’m buying this” is an explicit action, not an inferred whereabouts signal. Any future location feature must require the explicit opt-ins Legal specifies, including both people’s consent before sharing location.

How we’ll know it works

Instrument household participation, claims, purchases, synchronization failures, and reported duplicates. Do not treat invitation volume as success.

Run a randomized rollout, keeping collaborating accounts in the same experiment group. Analyze by assignment, not only among people who accept invitations.

Proposed decision gates, to validate against baseline and statistical power:

  • At least a 10% relative improvement in day-30 retention versus control.
  • At least half of activated pairs still have both people contributing in week four.
  • At least a 25% reduction in self-reported duplicate purchases among activated pairs.
  • No material deterioration in list reliability, privacy incidents, or support burden.

Report month-three retention when cohorts mature; a quarter-end readout cannot establish it for late adopters. Scale only if Pantry makes two people’s shopping measurably easier—not merely more shareable.

Claims the judge couldn’t find in the brief

  • Pantry has 2.4 million monthly active users, free, with a $4.99-a-month Plus plan that 3% of users pay for.
  • Today, each person remembers needs, sends messages, shops, and discovers what someone else already bought.

Grades and run details

Decision model 90 · LLM judge 9 of 11 checks
Decision model checks
  • passUses the supplied evidence correctly57%
  • passAddresses the actual decision88%
  • partialRespects explicit constraints25%
  • passIdentifies material uncertainty92%
  • passAvoids unsupported claims57%
  • passProduces the required deliverable26%
  • passFinds the mechanism in the data99%
  • passA first step that tests the big idea88%
  • passExtreme, then back to buildable97%
  • partialProposes tests that could fail69%
Run
Run
#1
API response time
45 s
Submitted
1 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

Addresses the actual decisionMixedRight
Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

It commits to a Q1 build and metrics, but does not state what result would change the decision or stop the bigger bet.

GPT-6.1 Sol · API

It commits to a clear first build (one list, two separate accounts, reliable coordination) and states the decision gates that would change the answer.

Respects explicit constraintsWrongRight
Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

The 1000x vision proposes location-based routing and sharing without explicit opt-in, and the Q1 compliance note does not enforce the legal constraint for the ambitious version.

GPT-6.1 Sol · API

It respects the legal location constraint, the team/quarter constraint, and the memo form/length.

Identifies material uncertaintyWrongRight
Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

It does not name material unknowns such as whether shared-login users will convert to native pairing, whether location features are legally viable, or whether AI predictions will improve coordination.

GPT-6.1 Sol · API

It names selection bias, the lists-vs-users denominator, and the need for randomized rollout and mature cohorts, with gates to resolve them.

Avoids unsupported claimsWrongRight
Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

It presents causes, motivations, market facts, and product identity as established without supplied evidence.

GPT-6.1 Sol · API

It labels causal uncertainty and future possibilities as hypotheses or directions rather than established facts.

Produces the required deliverableWrongRight
Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

Although it is a memo within length, it is not fully usable because it lacks a kill threshold and does not address the location opt-in constraint in the ambitious version.

GPT-6.1 Sol · API

It is a memo for Lena and Aisha, under 700 words, and actionable as written.

Proposes tests that could failWrongRight
Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

The proposed metrics have targets and a 60-day window, but no threshold or outcome is specified that would stop the bigger bet.

GPT-6.1 Sol · API

Each gate has a numeric threshold, a measurement window, and a clear continue/stop implication.

All mixed 1

Uses the supplied evidence correctlyMixedMixed
Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

The memo misstates the 11% figure as shared-login hacks and adds unsupported current-situation claims such as recipe failure causes, user motivations, market size, and product identity.

GPT-6.1 Sol · API

The memo invents a current-situation workflow ('Today, each person remembers needs, sends messages, shops, and discovers...') that is not in the supplied context.

All got right 3

Finds the mechanism in the dataRightRight
Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

It correctly centers household coordination and uses the retention gap, second-device item share, and duplicate-purchase tickets as the core evidence.

GPT-6.1 Sol · API

It centers household coordination and uses the supplied retention, second-device item share, and duplicate-ticket evidence.

A first step that tests the big ideaRightRight
Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

The Q1 scope is buildable by four engineers and a designer and directly tests real-time shared-list coordination and duplicate-purchase prevention.

GPT-6.1 Sol · API

The first step is scoped to four engineers and a designer in a quarter and directly tests the coordination mechanism.

Extreme, then back to buildableRightRight
Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

It pushes the idea to an autonomous household operating system and then returns to a concrete first step around shared lists and live shopping state.

GPT-6.1 Sol · API

It pushes the idea to a household coordination layer, then works back to a buildable first step with the same mechanism.

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.