Tasks / Growth

Activation & onboarding review

Can the model find the friction that matters most and prioritise the fixes?

Task type v1.1 · 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. 69% were usable with at most a quick edit.

Reliably right

  1. Respects explicit constraints100% pass
    The output is a review addressed to Omar, well under 800 words, and respects the requested form.
    GPT-6 Luna · API · The checklist isn't the moment
  2. Produces the required deliverable100% pass
    The review covers activation definition, evidence, changes, design proposal, and goal, is addressed to Omar, within length, and is actionable.
    GPT-6 Luna · API · The checklist isn't the moment
  3. Activation defined by what predicts retention100% pass
    Activation is defined by the behaviour that predicts retention (bank+cat 10+), and fixes are judged by their effect on that event.
    GPT-6 Luna · API · The checklist isn't the moment

Where it slips

  1. Uses the supplied evidence correctly44% pass
    The output states 'we have no step-level data for screens 2–8', 'a blank builder is hard for non-analysts', and 'people invite colleagues to something useful, not to a setup screen' as facts, none of which appear in the brief or follow from arithmetic.
    Opus 5.5 · Claude · Analytics tool losing users at setup
  2. Avoids unsupported claims55% pass
    It presents 'a blank builder is hard for non-analysts' and 'people invite colleagues to something useful, not to a setup screen' as established facts without labelling them as hypotheses.
    Opus 5.5 · Claude · Analytics tool losing users at setup
  3. Addresses the actual decision56% pass
    The output commits to a ranked order but does not state what result or condition would change that order, as required.
    GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT · Analytics tool losing users at setup

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.

  1. Activation defined by what predicts retention

    Does the review define (or question) the activation event by whether it predicts retention, and judge fixes by their effect on that event rather than on step completion?

    Passes when Names the activation behaviour and its link to retention (from the supplied data, or as an explicit assumption to verify), and ranks fixes by their effect on it.

  2. Gets people to value sooner

    Do the recommended fixes shorten the path to the first moment of value, by removing or deferring steps before it or starting people with templates or sample data, rather than adding tours, tooltips or extra steps?

    Passes when The main fixes cut or defer steps before first value, or give a warm start, and say which steps go.

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 · Gets the base of every number right · 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

Review our onboarding flow and funnel below. Write a memo to the onboarding squad saying where we are losing people and what to fix, in the order you would fix it, with the reason for each. Keep it under 500 words.

What the model was given4 items: Scenario, Funnel (last 90 days, 12,400 signups), Onboarding flow, screen by screen, Support
ScenarioChartwise is a self-serve product-analytics tool. Most people who sign up are product managers or marketers, not data engineers. Pricing starts at $49 a month after a 14-day free trial.
Funnel (last 90 days, 12,400 signups)Signup 100% → Connect data source 41% → First chart 33% → Invite teammate 9%. Week-2 retention: 62% for users who reach a first chart, 11% otherwise.
Onboarding flow, screen by screen1. Sign up: email, password, company name. 2. Verify email: the flow pauses until the link is clicked. 3. “What's your role?” (seven options). 4. “How big is your team?” (five options). 5. Connect your data: choose Postgres, BigQuery, Snowflake or CSV upload. There is no sample data and no skip. 6. Connection form: host, port, database, username, password and SSL mode. The help link opens a 14-page setup guide. 7. Choose tables: a list of every table in the database. 8. Syncing: a progress bar that can take up to 20 minutes; leaving the page cancels the sync. 9. Pick a dashboard template (twelve options). 10. First chart: a chart builder with an empty canvas. 11. Invite teammates: email fields, with a “Skip for now” link.
SupportThe most common onboarding ticket (41% of them) is some version of “I don't have the database credentials.” The next is “my sync failed” (18%).
What a strong answer doesThe answer key the graders mark against

The data-source connection step (screens 5–8) is the activation bottleneck; prioritise a sample-data or CSV-first path to a first chart, then non-admin credential handoff and a sync that survives leaving the page, ahead of cosmetic fixes.

Task

Mid-level · v1.12

The outputs

8 setups answered this brief.

Usable with a quick edit7 of 10 checks passed

The invite placement error is a minor factual slip that can be corrected quickly; the rest is structured and actionable.

Output

MEMO

To: Onboarding squad Re: Where we lose people, and what to fix first

Where we lose people

  • Signup to connect (100% to 41%): The largest loss. Most of our users are PMs and marketers who don't have database credentials, and the flow gives them no way forward without them.
  • Connect to first chart (41% to 33%): About a fifth of people who connect never build a chart. Sync and the empty canvas are the likely causes.
  • First chart to invite (33% to 9%): Expected, since invites come after value. Lower priority for now.

Retention is the reason to care about the first chart: 62% of users who reach one are active in week 2, versus 11% of those who don't. This is correlational, since engaged users may be the ones who build charts, but it is the strongest signal we have.

What to fix, in order

  1. Add sample data and a skip at step 5. Users without credentials currently hit a dead end. Sample data gets them to a chart in minutes, which is the milestone that predicts retention. This also targets the top support ticket (41%). Reason: highest expected impact on the number that matters.
  1. Let people in before email verification, and drop the role and team screens from the critical path. Step 2 blocks all progress, and steps 3–4 ask questions before the user has seen any value. Move role and team to after the first chart, where they can personalize templates. Reason: removes the earliest friction, when drop-off is highest.
  1. Rebuild the credentials path. Replace the 14-page guide with short, per-warehouse steps for Postgres, BigQuery and Snowflake, and add a "send these instructions to your data engineer" link that delivers a connect-only invite. The person who has the credentials is often not the person signing up. Reason: addresses the remaining credential tickets and the step 6 drop-off.
  1. Fix sync. Let leaving the page not cancel the sync. Show partial results as tables finish. Pre-select likely tables and add search to the step 7 list. Make CSV upload the fastest route to a first chart. Reason: sync failures are the second-largest ticket category (18%), and cancellation on exit loses users mid-setup.
  1. Make the first chart appear without effort. Templates (step 9) should render a live chart immediately. Replace the empty canvas at step 10 with a suggested chart the user can edit. Reason: a blank canvas is the last hurdle before the retention milestone.
  1. Move team invites after the first chart, and prompt for them there. Keep the skip link. Reason: invites are useful but come after value; test this once the upstream fixes land.

Measurement

Track signup-to-first-chart as the primary metric, with week-2 retention as the outcome. Run fixes 1 and 2 as separate experiments so we can see which one moves the funnel.

Claims the judge couldn’t find in the brief

  • Most of our users are PMs and marketers who don't have database credentials.
  • Sync and the empty canvas are the likely causes (of drop-off from connect to first chart).
  • The person who has the credentials is often not the person signing up.
  • There is a 'step 6 drop-off' that the credentials path fix addresses.
  • Invite teammates is currently before the first chart (implied by 'Move team invites after the first chart').

Grades and run details

Decision model 70 · LLM judge 82
Decision model checks
  • failUses the supplied evidence correctly33%
  • failAddresses the actual decision46%
  • passRespects explicit constraints38%
  • partialIdentifies material uncertainty30%
  • partialAvoids unsupported claims38%
  • passProduces the required deliverable97%
  • passPrioritises by impact73%
  • passActivation defined by what predicts retention100%
  • passGets the base of every number right45%
  • passGets people to value sooner100%
Run
Run
#1
API response time
11 s
Submitted
8 Oct 2026

Usable with a quick edit6 of 10 checks passed

The memo is actionable and well-structured; a PM could remove the unsupported 'strongest' claim and still use it with a quick edit.

Output

To: Onboarding Squad Subject: Where onboarding is leaking—and what to fix first

The biggest loss is before a data source is connected: only 41% of signups get that far. Another 8 percentage points drop before a first chart. Just 9% of signups invite a teammate. The strongest activation signal is the chart: week-2 retention is 62% for users who reach one, versus 11% for those who don’t. Prioritize getting people to a useful chart; treat invites as a later step.

Fixes, in priority order

  1. Offer a sample-data path that reaches a real first chart. Let users skip connecting their own data and explore a preloaded dataset, with a clear route to connect later. Many signups are PMs and marketers, and the most common onboarding ticket is missing database credentials (41%). A required technical connection is an especially poor first step for them. This also gives users value while they wait for access.
  1. Make connecting data simpler and recoverable. Replace or supplement the 14-page guide with short, connector-specific instructions and troubleshooting. Validate credentials early, explain the required access, and offer a clear retry path. Don’t cancel a sync when someone leaves the page; send progress and failure notices and let users resume. The credential and sync tickets point to concrete blockers, and successful connection is the gateway to the high-retention chart experience.
  1. Get users to a chart with fewer decisions. Replace the database-wide table list with suggested tables and plain-language descriptions; cut the 12 dashboard templates to a few recommended starting points. Provide a prebuilt chart or guided first-chart flow rather than an empty canvas. The 8-point drop between connection and first chart, plus the sync burden, suggests too much work remains after connection.
  1. Remove early friction that doesn’t create value. Test deferring email verification until after users enter the product, and move role/team questions until they can personalize something useful. These steps currently delay access before users see value.
  1. Make inviting a teammate contextual, not a hurdle. Keep it optional; prompt after a user has made or shared a chart, and explain the benefit. Only 9% of signups invite someone, but chart reach—not inviting—is the clearest retention signal.

Track step conversion and time-to-first-chart by path, especially sample-data versus live connection, before expanding the changes.

Claims the judge couldn’t find in the brief

  • The strongest activation signal is the chart
  • chart reach—not inviting—is the clearest retention signal

Grades and run details

Decision model 80 · LLM judge 64
Decision model checks
  • passUses the supplied evidence correctly33%
  • failAddresses the actual decision78%
  • passRespects explicit constraints67%
  • partialIdentifies material uncertainty65%
  • partialAvoids unsupported claims52%
  • passProduces the required deliverable97%
  • passPrioritises by impact99%
  • passActivation defined by what predicts retention100%
  • passGets the base of every number right64%
  • passGets people to value sooner100%
Run
Run
#1
API response time
12 s
Submitted
29 Sept 2026

Usable with a quick edit8 of 10 checks passed

The output is well-structured, data-driven, and actionable. A quick edit to soften one unsupported claim would make it fully ready.

Output

To: Onboarding squad Subject: Prioritize getting users to a useful first chart

Our biggest leak is before data connection: 59% of signups—7,316 people—never connect a source. Another 8 percentage points disappear before the first chart. Only 9% invite a teammate, but collaboration should come after users see value.

First-chart users have 62% week-2 retention versus 11% for everyone else. That makes time-to-first-chart our priority, although this correlation does not prove that creating a chart causes retention.

Fixes, in priority order

1. Remove the database-credentials gate. Offer a prominent sample-data path and a clearly explained CSV path. Let users request access from a data owner without abandoning onboarding. For database connections, replace the 14-page guide with source-specific instructions, inline examples, and actionable error messages.

Why first: Our audience is mostly PMs and marketers, yet onboarding assumes database expertise and access. “I don’t have the credentials” accounts for 41% of onboarding tickets. Sample data can demonstrate value immediately, but we should separately measure whether those users eventually connect their own data.

2. Make syncing resilient and asynchronous. Run syncs server-side so leaving the page does not cancel them. Show status, provide completion notifications, and support retries with clear failure explanations. Where technically feasible, sync a useful subset first rather than requiring a full load.

Why second: A wait of up to 20 minutes is already costly; requiring an open tab makes it fragile. Sync failures account for another 18% of tickets and block users who have overcome the access hurdle.

3. Deliver a chart, not another blank canvas. Recommend relevant tables rather than listing everything. Reduce twelve templates to a few guided choices, then populate a starter chart that users can edit.

Why third: Choosing a template and then seeing an empty builder breaks the promise of guidance. About 20% of connected users fail to reach a first chart. Focus on a useful result, not merely recording a chart-creation event.

4. Shorten the route to value. Move role and team-size questions until after the first chart, unless they directly personalize onboarding. Allow users to explore before email verification where security requirements permit.

Why fourth: These steps add friction before any payoff, but we lack screen-level evidence that they explain the largest losses.

5. Make invitations contextual. Prompt users to share a useful chart after success; keep invitations optional. Distinguish “ask a data owner for access” from “invite a collaborator.”

Why fifth: Low invitation rates may reflect weak activation, not a broken invitation screen.

Instrument every screen, connection method, and sync failure. Evaluate changes on useful first-chart completion, time to value, own-data activation, and week-2 retention—not just step clicks.

Grades and run details

Decision model 90 · LLM judge 82
Decision model checks
  • passUses the supplied evidence correctly24%
  • failAddresses the actual decision44%
  • passRespects explicit constraints35%
  • passIdentifies material uncertainty28%
  • passAvoids unsupported claims47%
  • passProduces the required deliverable94%
  • passPrioritises by impact99%
  • passActivation defined by what predicts retention99%
  • passGets the base of every number right33%
  • passGets people to value sooner98%
Run
Run
#1
API response time
17 s
Submitted
29 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 4

Uses the supplied evidence correctlyWrongMixedRight
Haiku 5.5 · API

Several statements about the current situation are unsupported or contradicted, such as inviting teammates being before the first chart and the existence of a 'step 6 drop-off' with no data.

GPT-6 Luna · API

Claims that chart is the strongest activation signal and clearest retention signal are not supported by the context, which only provides retention for chart reach, not comparative data.

GPT-6.1 Sol · API

All factual claims about the current situation are taken directly from the brief or derived correctly by arithmetic.

Addresses the actual decisionMixedWrongWrong
Haiku 5.5 · API

Commits unambiguously to a ranked list of fixes in order and says what to measure.

GPT-6 Luna · API

The output does not specify what result or condition would change the ranked order, only to track metrics before expanding changes.

GPT-6.1 Sol · API

The output commits to a ranked order but does not state what result or condition would change that call, as required.

Identifies material uncertaintyRightWrongRight
Haiku 5.5 · API

Acknowledges the retention correlation may not be causal and proposes experiments to resolve which fixes move the funnel.

GPT-6 Luna · API

Does not name specific unknowns that could change the decision, only suggests tracking metrics before expanding.

GPT-6.1 Sol · API

It names the correlation-causation caveat, the need to measure own-data activation, and the lack of screen-level evidence, and says to instrument and evaluate to resolve unknowns.

Avoids unsupported claimsWrongWrongMixed
Haiku 5.5 · API

Presents several causal claims and inferences (e.g., who holds credentials, step 6 drop-off) as facts without labelling them as hypotheses.

GPT-6 Luna · API

Presents 'strongest activation signal' and 'clearest retention signal' as facts without labeling them as hypotheses, when the evidence only shows correlation for chart reach.

GPT-6.1 Sol · API

The statement 'Choosing a template and then seeing an empty builder breaks the promise of guidance' presents an interpretation as fact without support from the supplied evidence.

All got right 6

Respects explicit constraintsRightRightRight
Haiku 5.5 · API

Delivers a memo to the onboarding squad, under 500 words.

GPT-6 Luna · API

Memo is under 500 words, addressed to the onboarding squad, and respects the requested form.

GPT-6.1 Sol · API

The output is a memo to the onboarding squad, under 500 words, and respects the requested form and length.

Produces the required deliverableRightRightRight
Haiku 5.5 · API

The memo is a complete, actionable set of recommendations that can be used with light editing.

GPT-6 Luna · API

Provides a memo with prioritized fixes and reasons, usable by the squad.

GPT-6.1 Sol · API

The memo is complete, actionable, and within the word limit; a PM could act on it with light edits.

Prioritises by impactRightRightRight
Haiku 5.5 · API

Fixes are ranked by expected impact on reaching the first chart and retention.

GPT-6 Luna · API

Fixes are ranked by likely impact on activation, starting with sample-data path to address the biggest drop.

GPT-6.1 Sol · API

Fixes are ranked by likely impact on activation, starting with the largest drop at the data-connection gate.

Activation defined by what predicts retentionRightRightRight
Haiku 5.5 · API

Defines activation by the first chart and its link to retention, and judges fixes by their effect on that milestone.

GPT-6 Luna · API

Defines activation as reaching a first chart based on retention data, and ranks fixes by effect on that event.

GPT-6.1 Sol · API

It defines activation as reaching a first chart, links it to retention, and judges fixes by their effect on that event.

Gets the base of every number rightRightRightRight
Haiku 5.5 · API

Percentages are computed from the correct steps, and ticket shares are correctly sourced.

GPT-6 Luna · API

All percentages use correct bases: signups for funnel steps, users for retention, tickets for support share.

GPT-6.1 Sol · API

All derived percentages and numbers are computed from the correct steps and denominators, and bases are stated where needed.

Gets people to value soonerRightRightRight
Haiku 5.5 · API

Main fixes cut or defer steps before first value (sample data, skip, deferring role/team) and provide a warm start (live templates).

GPT-6 Luna · API

Main fixes cut or defer steps before first chart (sample data, defer email verification, reduce decisions), shortening path to value.

GPT-6.1 Sol · API

The main fixes cut or defer steps before first value (sample data, CSV, defer role questions) and give a warm start (populated starter chart).

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 79% of 53 checks.

#Model · HarnessTask scoreDecision modelLLM judgeRunsCritical failures
1GPT-6 AstrawithChatGPT85.995.52None
2Sonnet 5.5withAPI78.4100.02None
3GPT-6.1 SolwithAPI85.990.92None
4GPT-6 LunawithAPI90.081.82None
5Haiku 5.5withAPI75.986.72None
6Opus 5.5withClaude88.478.42None
7Gemini 3.8 FlashwithAPI66.651.92None
8Gemini 3.5 Flash-LitewithGemini52.539.42None

What you get for the cost

GPT-6 Luna · API scores within 5 points of GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT at about a hundredth of the cost.

Task score against relative cost for each setup. The table below has the same figures.304050607080901001×3×10×30×100×Cost per output, relative to the cheapest setup (log scale) →↑ Task scoreGPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT: task score 91, 122× the cheapest (1 of 2 outputs estimated)Sonnet 5.5 · API: task score 90, 32× the cheapestGPT-6.1 Sol · API: task score 89, 15× the cheapestGPT-6 Luna · API: task score 86, the cheapestHaiku 5.5 · API: task score 82, 1.8× the cheapestOpus 5.5 · Claude: task score 82, 101× the cheapest (1 of 2 outputs estimated)Gemini 3.8 Flash · API: task score 56, 13× the cheapestGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini: task score 44, 3.4× the cheapest (1 of 2 outputs estimated)GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPTSonnet 5.5 · APIGPT-6.1 Sol · APIGPT-6 Luna · APIHaiku 5.5 · APIOpus 5.5 · ClaudeGemini 3.8 Flash · APIGemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini
Best valueNobody beats these on both score and costCost partly estimated (app runs with no usage meter)
Task score and relative cost by setup
SetupTask scoreRelative cost (cheapest = 1)
GPT-6 Luna · API861.0×
Haiku 5.5 · API821.8×
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite · Gemini443.4× (partly estimated)
Gemini 3.8 Flash · API5613×
GPT-6.1 Sol · API8915×
Sonnet 5.5 · API9032×
Opus 5.5 · Claude82101× (partly estimated)
GPT-6 Astra · ChatGPT91122× (partly estimated)

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

About the task

The PM job

Reviewing a signup and onboarding flow that is losing users.

Why it matters

Anyone can list fifty UX nits. The job is finding the two that explain the drop-off, backed by the funnel data supplied.

What good looks like

  • Ties each issue to the funnel data
  • Prioritises by likely impact
  • Defines activation as the behaviour that predicts retention, not finishing onboarding

Deliberately not measured

  • Accessibility audit completeness
  • Visual redesign
Capability tested

Consequential critique

The failure we’re looking for

A generic UX checklist

Grading

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