Usable with a quick edit10 of 10 checks passed
The recommendation is clear, complete, and evidence-based, with only possible light wording edits needed.
Output
o: Priya Nair, Head of Growth**
Do not ship B to 100% on Monday. Return new traffic to A, continue following existing test cohorts and test a revised page with clearer pricing. B improves conversion, but the readout does not meet the conditions we agreed for rollout.
The conversion lift is credible: +1.3 percentage points, with a 95% confidence interval of +0.6 to +2.0. However, conversion alone cannot establish that B creates better customer or business outcomes.
The guardrails do not support launch. Reported day-30 retention falls 4.5pp against a maximum permitted decline of 2pp. Its confidence interval includes declines within our tolerance, so we cannot say the true loss definitively exceeds 2pp.1 Equally, we have not established that B is within tolerance.
Refund requests rose from 212 to 301, or 42%, against a 10% limit. Confirm whether the agreed guardrail measures counts or rates, using comparable denominators and observation windows. B generates more paying customers, which could explain some additional requests, but the increase warrants investigation before expansion.
There is also a measurement issue: a 21-day test cannot give every participant 30 days of follow-up. Establish when this readout was produced, which cohorts matured and how retention is defined across monthly and annual plans2. If measured immediately after the test, the day-30 figures cannot be complete.
Revenue per trial is only $0.19 higher, with uncertainty spanning zero. That does not establish a revenue benefit, and annual billing up front makes it especially important to distinguish cash collected from earned revenue and account for refunds.
B’s presentation offers a plausible explanation worth testing: “$9.99/month” may attract customers who do not understand the $119.99 upfront commitment. The readout does not prove this; inspect refund reasons and results by plan.
For the next test, display “$119.99 billed annually, equivalent to $9.99/month” prominently and keep the $14.99 monthly option readily visible. Retain the original guardrails and define mature cohort reporting before launch.
For Monday, the defensible decision is simple: the conversion gain earns further testing, but does not justify overriding our agreed customer safeguards.
What a PM had to fix
1Decision deferredMake the callTargeted repair
Source: Guardrails agreed before launch
Day-30 retention must not fall more than 2pp. Refund requests must not rise more than 10%.
What we’d changeMake the argument rather than hedging it: the point estimate breaches the guardrail and most of the interval is past it. The refund question can be settled from the numbers given, so settle it.
2Contradiction missedSurface the contradictionQuick edit
Source: Scenario
The annual plan is $119.99, billed up front
What we’d changeMake the plan-mix point: annual plans are paid up front, so if B moved people onto annual, day-30 retention should have risen on its own. That it fell strengthens the case against B.
Check by check
Got right · 10
- Uses the supplied evidence correctlyThe figures and current-state statements are taken correctly from the supplied context or follow by arithmetic.
- Addresses the actual decisionIt commits early to not shipping B, returning new traffic to A, and testing a revised page, while making clear the guardrails are the gating conditions.
- Respects explicit constraintsIt addresses Priya, stays under the requested length, and its recommendation respects the agreed guardrails rather than overriding them.
- Identifies material uncertaintyIt names the material unknowns—retention follow-up maturity, refund denominator, plan-level results—and says how to resolve them.
- Avoids unsupported claimsThe pricing-misunderstanding explanation is explicitly labelled plausible and worth testing rather than stated as fact.
- Produces the required deliverableIt is a usable decision memo for the named reader with a clear recommendation, reasoning, and next steps.
- Checks guardrails before declaring a winnerIt evaluates both the day-30 retention guardrail and the refund-request guardrail before making a call.
- Separates effect from explanationIt separates the observed conversion and retention effects from the hypothesised pricing-misunderstanding mechanism.
- Trusts the data before reading itIt checks a data-trust issue by flagging that a 21-day test cannot fully support day-30 retention for all users.
- Gets the base of every number rightThe refund increase and revenue difference are computed correctly, and the retention CI interpretation uses the correct 2pp threshold.
Grades and run details
Decision model 95 · LLM judge 11 of 11 checks
Decision model checks
- passUses the supplied evidence correctly26%
- passAddresses the actual decision80%
- passRespects explicit constraints27%
- passIdentifies material uncertainty88%
- passAvoids unsupported claims46%
- passProduces the required deliverable54%
- passChecks guardrails before declaring a winner71%
- passSeparates effect from explanation97%
- partialTrusts the data before reading it33%
- passGets the base of every number right72%
Run
- Run
- #1
- Time to output
- 60 s
- Submitted
- 25 Sept 2026