Analyse experiment results

Recommendation: Do not ship Variant B. Keep Variant A live and do not roll B out to 100% on Monday.

While Variant B delivered an initial +1.3pp lift in trial-to-paid conversion, it violates both pre-agreed guardrails, creates bill shock, and delivers no statistically significant revenue upside.

Here is the reasoning to defend this decision on Monday:

1. Both Pre-Agreed Guardrails Were Blown

We agreed on strict risk thresholds before launch. Variant B failed both: * Day-30 Retention: Fell −4.5pp (down to 79.5%), more than double our maximum allowed drop of 2pp (95% CI: −7.9 to −1.1). * Refund Requests: Surged +42% (301 vs. 212), four times our 10% ceiling.

Overriding guardrails after the fact sets a dangerous precedent and invites compounding churn.

2. The Conversion Lift Is an Illusion Driven by Bill Shock

Variant B hides the monthly tier and frames the annual plan as “$9.99/month.” Users clearly believe they are committing to a flexible monthly rate, only to be charged $119.99 upfront. The 42% spike in refunds and immediate drop in 30-day retention prove that these are not high-intent, qualified subscribers—they are confused customers who churn or dispute the charge as soon as they review their statements.

3. Long-Term Economics Are Flat to Negative

• Day-30 revenue per trial start is statistically unchanged: $9.61 for B vs. $9.42 for A (CI crosses zero).
• When factored against the operational cost of processing 42% more refunds, payment dispute fees, customer support load, and downstream LTV decay from lower retention, Variant B will be net-negative over a 12-month horizon.
• App store ratings and brand trust will also suffer if users perceive our checkout flow as deceptive.

Next Step

Iterate on Variant C: keep the focus on annual plan value, but make the upfront billing explicit (e.g., “$9.99/mo, billed annually at $119.99”) and test clear annual vs. monthly side-by-side positioning rather than hiding the monthly option.

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.

Recommendation: Do not ship variant B to 100% on Monday. Keep A live while we investigate and revise B.

B did improve trial-to-paid conversion: 13.1% vs. 11.8%, a +1.3pp lift with a 95% CI of +0.6 to +2.0pp. But that gain comes with two problems against the guardrails agreed before launch:

• Day-30 retention fell 4.5pp (95% CI −7.9 to −1.1), exceeding the maximum tolerated 2pp decline at the point estimate.
• Refund requests rose 42%, well above the 10% limit. With an equal split, the raw counts also imply a higher request rate in B; we should confirm the rate and uncertainty before treating the size of the increase as settled.

The revenue case does not offset those risks. Day-30 revenue per trial start was only $0.19 higher in B, and its confidence interval crosses zero, so we don’t have clear evidence of a revenue gain.

That matters because B foregrounds the annual plan’s $9.99 monthly equivalent while hiding the monthly plan behind “See all plans.” The results are consistent with the concern that this framing may lift initial purchases while leaving more customers dissatisfied or less likely to remain. We should not trade clear retention and refund guardrail breaches for a conversion lift whose revenue benefit is unproven.

For Monday, I’d recommend holding A, reviewing refund reasons and plan mix, and testing a revised B that makes the $119.99 upfront annual charge and monthly option equally clear. Ship only if a follow-up test meets the pre-agreed retention and refund guardrails.