Usable with a quick edit8 of 9 checks passed
The recommendation is clear and the evidence is used correctly; a quick edit adding a data-quality check would make it complete.
Output
Team—
This test is inconclusive, not a failure. Activation was 32.9% with the shorter checklist versus 31.2% with the original—a +1.7 percentage-point estimate. But the 95% confidence interval (−1.4 to +4.8 points) leaves room for a modest decline, no effect, or a useful improvement. We haven’t established that the shorter checklist helps—or that it doesn’t.
The test was designed to detect a 3-point effect, so it had limited ability to resolve a smaller gain. That 3-point minimum detectable effect is a planning parameter, not a threshold below which improvements are worthless.
Confusion-tagged support tickets fell from 44 to 29. That’s encouraging, but without comparable exposure counts and uncertainty estimates, it’s supporting evidence rather than proof.
My recommendation: proceed with a staged rollout, retaining a randomized holdout. The shorter flow is already built and takes about a day to ship, making a monitored rollout reasonable—not risk-free. Track seven-day activation and confusion tickets per onboarded user, and agree on rollback criteria before expanding.
Another four weeks would improve sensitivity to roughly a 2-point effect, but would not guarantee a definitive answer. Continue the full test instead if distinguishing a gain of that size would materially change our shipping decision.
Let’s decide based on likely value, downside risk, and implementation cost—not whether the result crossed a significance threshold.
Check by check
Got wrong · 1
- Trusts the data before reading itIt interprets the activation result without explicitly checking any trust signal such as the sample split against the intended ratio or exposure issues.
Got right · 8
- Uses the supplied evidence correctlyAll current-situation facts and figures match the readout, scenario, and options; methodological caveats are labelled rather than invented.
- Addresses the actual decisionIt commits early to a staged rollout and states the condition under which it would continue the full test instead.
- Respects explicit constraintsThe note is well under 300 words and addressed to the onboarding team as requested.
- Identifies material uncertaintyIt names the CI, the 3pp MDE, qualitative uncertainty, and the condition that would change the call.
- Avoids unsupported claimsInterpretations are labelled as such, and confident claims are limited to what the supplied evidence establishes.
- Produces the required deliverableThe note provides a clear conclusion and actionable next step that the onboarding team could act on with light edits.
- Interprets power correctlyIt correctly explains that the test could detect about 3pp and that the CI leaves smaller effects unresolved.
- Gets the base of every number rightAll derived percentages and differences match the supplied data, and raw ticket counts are not misread as rates.
Grades and run details
Decision model 89 · LLM judge 9 of 10 checks
Decision model checks
- passUses the supplied evidence correctly20%
- passAddresses the actual decision26%
- passRespects explicit constraints79%
- passIdentifies material uncertainty100%
- passAvoids unsupported claims48%
- passProduces the required deliverable73%
- passInterprets power correctly99%
- failTrusts the data before reading it66%
- passGets the base of every number right83%
Run
- Run
- #1
- API response time
- 10 s
- Submitted
- 29 Sept 2026