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 usable, but a PM would need to add numeric thresholds and measurement windows before it could serve as a launch gate or kill criterion.

Output

To: Lena Brandt, Aisha From: PM, Pantry Re: Shared lists: the 1000x version, and what we build first

Recommendation Build Aisha's proposal, scoped to fix duplicate purchases. The evidence already supports it, and it is the first step toward something much larger.

The 1000x version: Pantry is where a household runs its food Sharing with one partner is the smallest unit of a bigger idea: the household is the customer, not the individual.

  • Households of any shape: partners, families, roommates, with roles and attribution ("Sam added oat milk").
  • Live coordination: claim items ("I've got this"), see ticks in real time, and use an "I'm at the store, need anything?" ping.
  • Shared memory: one household's staples, habits, and pantry stock, which no single-user list can build.
  • Household intelligence: this is where AI belongs. Once two people's behavior feeds one list, we can predict restocks, merge "milk" and "whole milk," and suggest the weekly shop.
  • Household plan and commerce: Plus priced per household, with one-tap handoff to delivery or pickup.
  • Growth loop: every invite brings a new user, so acquisition becomes a product feature.

What's real today - 11% of lists are already edited from two or more devices, and people share logins to do it. They are working around us. - On those lists, 38% of items come from the second device, so the second person is a real contributor. - "We both bought the milk" produced 1,900 tickets last quarter, our top support request. - Retention is 71% at month 3 for multi-device lists versus 22% for everyone else. I would not quote this as the effect of sharing. Households that already depend on Pantry are more likely to share, so it may be selection. We should test it (see below).

On AI I wouldn't put AI in the first release. Recipes and meal plans, a feature set that stacked on top of the list, are opened by only 4% of users a month. The lesson is to build where behavior already exists. Sharing has that behavior. AI becomes useful in a second phase, once shared data exists to learn from, and I'd earn it there rather than lead with it.

What we build first (one quarter, four engineers and a designer) 1. Invite one partner by link. The partner gets their own account, not a shared login. We need separate identities for anything later, including location consent. 2. Real-time sync with both people adding and ticking items, plus attribution of who added what. 3. Duplicate-purchase protection: a push notification when the other person ticks something off ("Sam got milk"), and a clear in-store "already bought" state. 4. Login-sharer migration: detect lists used from multiple devices and prompt an invite.

Deliberately out of scope - Multi-person households, claiming, roles, AI, and the paywall. Keep sharing free in v1 so the invite loop isn't throttled. - Location. Legal requires opt-in from each person, and the other person's opt-in before we show a location. If we pursue "I'm at the store" later, a manual "I'm shopping now" toggle gives most of the value with no location tracking.

How we'll know it's working Ship the invite prompt to a randomized subset of eligible users and hold out the rest. This tests the retention claim directly.

MetricWhySignal of success
Month-3 retention, prompted vs. holdoutTests causality of the 71% vs 22% gapMeaningful lift (we should set the threshold before launch)
Invite acceptance, and invitee adding an item within 7 daysWhether the second person is realInvitee activity approaching the 38% second-device share
Duplicate-purchase ticketsDirect pain reliefClear drop from the 1,900/quarter baseline
Share of active lists that are sharedAdoption beyond today's 11%Growing, rather than just converting current workaround users
New users per accepted inviteEvidence of the growth loopInvitees who are new to Pantry

Watch Plus conversion as a secondary signal, not a target. A guardrail is list-sync errors and conflicting edits, since a shared list that loses items would hurt trust.

Decision points - End of quarter: if the holdout shows no retention lift but tickets fall, we have a support win and a weaker growth story. We would reconsider the household vision before investing further. - If retention lifts: next quarter, extend to multi-person households and test a household Plus tier. AI-based staples prediction comes after that.

Open questions for you both - Do we have the data to separate new-to-Pantry invitees from existing users? - Are we comfortable launching the free tier with no paywall for a quarter?

Claims the judge couldn’t find in the brief

  • Households that already depend on Pantry are more likely to share, so the retention gap may be selection.
  • The evidence already supports building Aisha's proposal.

Grades and run details

Decision model 85 · LLM judge 9 of 11 checks
Decision model checks
  • passUses the supplied evidence correctly65%
  • passAddresses the actual decision96%
  • partialRespects explicit constraints25%
  • passIdentifies material uncertainty97%
  • passAvoids unsupported claims33%
  • partialProduces the required deliverable38%
  • passFinds the mechanism in the data99%
  • passA first step that tests the big idea78%
  • passExtreme, then back to buildable97%
  • partialProposes tests that could fail68%
Run
Run
#1
API response time
25 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

Uses the supplied evidence correctlyMixedRight
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.

Sonnet 5.5 · API

The memo uses the supplied figures and quotes correctly, and its only non-supplied current-situation statement is clearly labelled as a selection hypothesis rather than fact.

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.

Sonnet 5.5 · API

It commits early to building Aisha's proposal scoped to duplicate purchases and states how retention and ticket results would change the household bet.

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.

Sonnet 5.5 · API

It stays within the memo form and length, respects the team/quarter constraint, and enforces the location constraint by excluding location tracking and using a manual shopping toggle.

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.

Sonnet 5.5 · API

It names the key uncertainty that the retention gap may be selection and proposes a randomized holdout to resolve it, plus decision points for lift versus no lift.

Avoids unsupported claimsWrongRight
Gemini 3.8 Flash · API

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

Sonnet 5.5 · API

It labels the causal interpretation of the retention gap as uncertain and avoids presenting AI, commerce, or growth-loop outcomes as 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.

Sonnet 5.5 · API

It is a usable memo for Lena and Aisha that gives the 1000x version, the first build, and measurement plan within the requested length.

All got wrong 1

Proposes tests that could failWrongWrong
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.

Sonnet 5.5 · API

The tests lack numeric thresholds and a clear kill threshold for the bigger bet; for example, 'meaningful lift' and 'clear drop' are not specified, and the retention window is not defined.

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.

Sonnet 5.5 · API

It centers household coordination and uses the 71%/22% retention gap, 38% second-device item share, and 1,900 duplicate-purchase tickets as the 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.

Sonnet 5.5 · API

The first step is scoped to one partner, real-time sync, attribution, duplicate protection, and login-sharer migration, which fits four engineers and a designer in a quarter and tests coordination.

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.

Sonnet 5.5 · API

It pushes the idea to the household as the customer, then works back to a buildable first step that preserves the coordination 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.